Jump to content

Talk:Criticism of religion/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 7

Possible new section

If I could find a reference, I would add something to the article like this... Religion is a form of mental illness that is caused by defects in a particular region of the brain. Experiences that are described in religious terms can be induced in the brain using powerful alternating magnetic fields (if I remember the experimenter's claims correctly) on this part of the brain. Atheism is the result of having a brain that does not have this defect. pigeon pigeon cat pigeon pigeon The Real Walrus 16:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Belief in religion is no more a "mental illness" than belief in ideology of communism is a "mental illness". Merely misguided belief. Ohanian 14:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I only know Bill Maher who actually says this [http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42906], though maybe others implicitly hold this view. --Merzul 02:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


While I don't know that he is claiming that it is a mental illness, per se, the Canadian researcher Michael Persinger has been mimicing the effects of temporal lobe epilepsy by passing magnetic fields through the peoples' brains, which seems to have been fairly reliably creating so called "religious experiences" for many years. On his biography page, I found the link to the Wired Article a particularly good introduction. This research was also mentioned by Richard Dawkins in an interview with Terrence McNally (try searching for "Michael Persinger" on that page). With respect to athiests not having this "defect": his research seems to indicate that about 20% of people are not affected by his stimulation technique. While it is interesting to note that Dawkins is a part of that 20% minority, I haven't seen it preposed that all athiests fall within this population, or that this population consists exclusively of athiests. On the contrary, I have read (although I unfortunately can't remember where; the Dawkins interview, perhaps?) that those who hold no traditional religious beliefs may experience a sense of "oneness with the universe", or other "out of body experience" (although I'm not entirely sure what either of those phrases mean exactly). Hope that helps clarify :)
GabrielG 05:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Computer viruses/memes

I noticed that the meme-term was attributed to Dawkins essay Viruses of the Mind and not The Selfish Gene. While correcting this, I became derailed by the entire paragraph structure. To me it didn't read well because it repeated itself and was somewhat polemic in nature. Attempted to write it a bit more tersely. --EthicsGradient 18:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Well done! Now, could you do the same thing to all the other sections in this article? :) More seriously, I think something drastic needs to be done, maybe the article needs some restructuring. I'm mostly bothered that things are getting repeated and well some sections are very poor. It is interesting that the German version follows a historical approach and is in much better shape than ours, but their situation is of course different as they don't have separate "criticism of" for each religion... --Merzul 21:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I really wouldn't know were to start... the Dawkins fix was easy because I kept changes within one para. --EthicsGradient 21:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Religious authoritarianism

The degree in which a religion is authoritarian can be estimated by

* How much influence the religion's laws have on the laws of the land. * How heretics are treated. * How apostates are treated. * How unbelievers are treated.

Undoubtedly these criteria will measure a certain kind of authoritarianism, but isn't there much more to it? Even when a religious organisation stands back from overtly getting involved in politics, it can still be a willing tool of legitimisation of hierarchical, feudalistic or monarchical power in many ways, can't it? Bhikkhu Santi 02:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Probably, and that would be an interesting aspect, so please be bold and add it to the article. The current text is just original research and so anything you write will be just as good, but if you can back it up by citing some sources, it would be even better of course. --Merzul 22:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

My edits and NPOV

I have jusy copy-edited the article, not the NPOV. Please, users, clean up the NPOV A.S.A.P. The article's too much for me to handle. The NPOV in this article currently does't even exist.

  • Look at these lines:


  • "From an outsider's point of view, many religions impose seemingly arbitrary restrictions on followers, regarding what they must or must not say, eat, drink (e.g. Kosher); whom they may marry, what they must (or must not) wear in public, with whom they may associate."
  • "One of the worst results of religious beliefs in the world seems to be the phenomenon of religious wars. Some argue that these are mostly caused by misinterpretations of the relevant religions' ethical rules. However, the tendency for religious war can also be attributed to the frequency and extent to which heretics and infidels are considered evil, and to the power of religion to reinforce tribal identity and encourage ignorance of outsiders. These conflicts are among the most difficult to resolve, particularly where both sides believe that God is on their side and has endorsed the moral righteousness of their claims. Furthermore, where God is credited with creating morality, he can be considered to have the power to allow or demand exceptions. This may result in holy warriors committing atrocities in the name of their deity. Finally, a focus on their "next life" may encourage soldiers to take a willing part in war, and to risk their present lives with greater abandon."

Not trying to be rude, but this article it totally not true, well a lot of statements need reference? Any users would like to help. This is more than I can handle. Showmanship is the key 01:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

That was one big copy-edit, thank you. I'm afraid I'm equally stuck with this article. I have an atheist POV, so I think many things in here are true. But the threshold for inclusion into wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, so if any statement here seems blatantly false, you can go ahead and delete it. It is after all, the one who includes the information that should provide the attribution. I can't say much in defense of the first two examples, maybe other people can, but the last example seems fairly neutral to me, most books in English do criticize Christianity and Islam rather than Buddhism. Although whether the existence of God is irrelevant to Buddhism is indeed one POV, but it is probably the point of view of one of the authors implied there. In either case, I encourage you to be more bold than usual with this article :) --Merzul 03:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


Congratulations

I'd like to congratulate all editors, who've been ironing out this article's makeup, and discussing it. Thankfully (so far), the article hasn't been deleted, as criticism of Religion does exist. You (all editors in this discussion) have (for the most part) kept the discussion civil. I'm an atheist, giving my 'thumbs up' for the mostly civil manner displayed in this discussion. PS- The 'talk page' should be Archived soon (for page length purposes). GoodDay 20:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

What should be in "Criticism of X" articles

Please see discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Views_please:_.22Criticism_of_X.22_articles. on "Criticism of X" articles. --BozMo talk 09:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The discussion just before archived didn't reach any solid consensus other than "critique" being a better word. I'm not sure, I would agree with CMummert's view there that "Criticism of" articles are justified when "criticism" is notable in its own right, thus Criticism of wikipedia is an article, but criticism of software engineering is not... The biggest problem of this article is that since sub-articles like Criticism of Christianity receive all the attention, this one is left in a poor state. I think everyone would agree that the German de:religionskritik is clearly worthy of an article. --Merzul 12:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Relgious war section

Its seems there's a paragraph that talks about terrorism, but only mentions islamic terrorism. I think relgious terrorism from other cultures should be added as well. Also maybe some mention of other forms of religous wars should be added aside from just terrorism. Acts like The spanish inquistion or even the Crusades or English Civil war should be added. Afterall terrorism is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to religous wars. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.81.229.178 (talk) 00:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

Additions to new Religion and Mental Illness section

Hello. I am the author of these two new sections. I am a complete Wiki Virgin and hope I am not asking an obvious question. I have seen new contributors encouraged to “be bold” and at the same time am seeing concerns about NPOV and Original Research. I well appreciate the concerns here, especially given the inherently emotional aspects of a topic like this. In my case, my comments are based on wide reading over the years and personal experience, including extensive travel to many parts of the world. I realize this in itself is not ‘verifyable’ information. I suppose I wanted to throw my hat in the ring and, over time, strengthen my contributions with verification. I would also be pleased if someone else jumped in with a citation supporting something I said. To my eyes, the entire article is an expression of the enthusiasm of the authors and I am happy to contribute to it. That said, I appreciate we have a serious responsibility to get things right and minimize personal distortions. Being a writer with a journalism background I wanted to add the notion of ‘neutral point of view’ is something to aim for as opposed to something any author can guarantee. A subject like this is going to have a great deal of subjective baggage brought to it, regardless of your point of view. In my case, I have no intention of hurting the feelings of believers, yet as an atheist, I feel it is important to express what I have found to be the case in this matter. I welcome other's comments and suggestions. Nuloy 15:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I was the one who added the tags, and this was not to say your input was of low quality, the only concern is that on wikipedia we are not signing the articles, so controversial statements like that require attribution. I mean religion and mental illness is such a sensitive issue, that any claim, no matter how obvious, really needs a name behind it. Do you see what I'm trying to say? It is fine to say that Richard Dawkins considers religion a delusion, but this page here is a collection of our own arguments and doesn't cite who is responsible. That's the concern, and it doesn't mean I want to delete your additions, just noted that these will require attribution, anyone might add sources for them. However, if anybody is seriously offended by your statements, then they will have the right to remove it until we can find a source for it. The burden of proof is on those who want to include information, but as long as nobody seriously objects, then it's all fine. I hope you will enjoy editing on wikipedia, and while drawing on ones own experience is excellent, if you can find sources and cite them, then that would be even more helpful! Oh, I forgot to thank you for adding the material. --Merzul 16:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay Merzul and thanks. It appears your concern is principly with my second contribution linking religion and insanity. I will start the process of searching for citations from folks who know even more about this than I, and I have personal experience with the three conditions mentioned, and see what I can come up with in short order. I will also work on finding supporting material for my other contribution. Thanks again.Nuloy 20:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not the issue that I don't trust your competence, it's merely that we can't state things like that without saying who has said so. This page is not exemplary of how things should be done on wikipedia, compare it with the articles featured on the main page, and you'll see examples of how things ought to be done :) --Merzul 21:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I've just discovered this page, and I think the section on "Religion and Mental Illness" is so full of original research that it really needs to be removed or massively shortened, not just tagged. I think the tone is unencyclopaedic, too ("imagine someone you knew", etc.). ElinorD (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The entire page is so problematic that I didn't want to single out just this section, and Nuloy has started to add sources for it, so I think he is moving in the right direction. But maybe I am too soft on this issue, so it is good a few more people are watching this. --Merzul 20:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi everyone! Thank you Elinor and Merzul for your comments. As the author of this new section, I welcome all suggestions on improving it. I am also fascinated by this discussion! Elinor will see that given her comments, I have removed the questions at the beginning. I had thought this would diminish the concerns by posing the information in a slightly less direct fashion. I look forward to someone else chiming in with references I do not know about and perspectives building on what I have begun. Merzul mentions his being ‘soft’ on this issue, making an interesting point. It is unlikely someone will be moved to contribute to a topic they have no interest in. I have read through this entire Criticisms article and realize there is a lot of personal perspective here. I have also, during the course of the past few days, looked at other articles taking the opposite viewpoint and see a measure of personal perspective there as well. There is no doubt they both have a higher emotional tone than an article on a less subjective topic. I have also noticed other articles where personal perspective creeps in. For instance, I have seen in a number of articles, referring to some perhaps controversial point, the use of the emotionally-suspect term “claim” instead of the neutral “said,” betraying the author's bias. Given we are in a highly charged area, I have tried to broach what I think are vital points needing to be raised and bring other voices in for confirmation. The book of Carl Sagan's I refer to is beyond opinionated on this subject. At this point, I see more references in these two paragraphs to other articles than in most of the rest of the article. That said, I welcome constructive suggestions of what can be practically done to improve the article. I remain grateful for this site and the opportunity to contribute to it and enjoy the process. If someone would like to re-write this completely so the same points are made without these concerns being raised I would love to see it. I look forward to your suggestions. Nuloy 20:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for showing that my "soft" approach was justified, you seem like a very reasonable editor! While linking to other articles is extremely good, it doesn't quite replace the need to add detailed source information as a footnote. I did so for one of your articles, just add the source between, e.g. <ref>Whatever source in whatever format you like</ref>. While your section is more referenced than the rest of this article, and yes, so much of wikipedia is full of personal perspectives, it isn't really something to strive for! One of the best religion related articles is Omnipotence paradox, and we should try to set our standards that high! But thank you for being such a nice person and open to criticism, I really hope you will become a wikipedia addict! :) --Merzul 22:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. Thanks very much for your kind words Merzul and for the reference to the Omnipotence article. I read it with great interest. I would suggest a couple of things about it. I assume it was originally written by a single author. Whether this is the case or not, to me it reads very smoothly - as if it were by one hand. Also, the topic, while still touching on the sensitive subject of religion, does so from a philosophic viewpoint. As such, it is ‘cool’ in tone. Perhaps the strongest point about it is its singular focus. It looks at one simply stated paradox and explores a variety of ways of responding to it. While I see on the talk section of this page it has been recognized for its excellence, I also see comments further down questioning its NPOV. I honestly wonder if it will ever be possible to approach anything to do with religion without someone raising this point. This is such a sensitive subject anyone with a differing point of view may feel we are not being ‘neutral.’ As for our Criticisms page, it is clearly the work of many authors, there are several places, such as my contributions, bound to provoke emotional response, and its focus is quite broad. As such, I think it will be very difficult to achieve the smoothness and clarity of the Paradox article. This does not mean we cannot raise the entire article, and its troubling subsections, up. For my part, I will continue as I am able to find more references for my section, which I personally feel is vital to include here. I welcome anyone's suggestions in this. I am encouraged by the creative process thus far. I look forward to ongoing contributions, suggested ways to strengthen what is already there, and dialogue about what we are all attempting to do. I certainly remain amazed at the opportunity we have here! Nuloy 21:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, and we should be careful not to misuse this opportunity. In some sense, yes, the "cool" tone should be preferred. The German wikipedia are trying to write precisely in that style, de:religionskritik, where they follow a historical approach and all criticism is attributed to famous philosophers. However, please do focus on your own section, and try to bring it up to the quality of not the rest of this article, but what is the ideal. I experimented with one way of starting the section that you could consider, but now I want to preach a bit about policy, namely, there is a very important implication of avoiding original research: we shouldn't combine different facts to make controversial claims. Here is the problem, you have written
  • Many religious figures were said to be guided by voices.
  • Today we know that auditory hallucinations are a common feature of those suffering from schizophrenia.
Both of these statements are probably true, but when they are put next to each other, we are implying that religious figures could suffer from schizophrenia. This is such a contentious statement that it needs to be attributed to someone outside wikipedia; so that if someone is upset they know who to call :) --Merzul 23:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I will try to find a reference. I am having some difficulty finding internet references for stuff I know I have read in the past. If I cannot find a satisfactory external source soon, I am happy to remove that first sentence while leaving the second. Thanks to Merzul or whomever for the the C.S. Lewis additions to this sections. Works for me. Nuloy 16:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I added that for you to work with, it seemed like a good way to show it's not such an outrageous view that's never been hear of. You can see who has edited the page by viewing the page history, and this is always good to follow, especially on pages with more traffic. Now, I'm going to be very busy in real life, so I'm afraid I can't follow the developments on this page. And I am myself not a very experienced Wikipedia editor, so I just have to warn you that there are many kinds of Wikipedians, all of them are well-meaning, but some are more aggressive about deleting and enforcing policy than others. If you see your material deleted or changed, look at the edit summaries in the history; and talk with the editors who object. If you stay cool and discuss the issue with them, as you have with me, then I don't think there will be any problems. I wish you good luck and lots of fun while doing this! --Merzul 18:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Merzul. I am happy to say I have found what I think are decent external sources, as well as more individuals and things profiled within Wikipedia. I think it strengthens the article a lot. I will continue to tinker and will also cast a glance at other sections to see if I can help. I could not figure out how to reply to your welcome message so I will say thanks here. Take care and good luck with that ‘real life’ thing eh? Nuloy 22:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I hate to say this but the "Religion and Mental Illness" section is technically not a criticism of religion. All it says is that "some people suffer from mental illness and they actually believe that they are having a genuine religious experience". This is a statement not a criticism of religion. If you can show that religion treats some symptoms of mental illness as genuine religious experiences then that may be a valid criticism. 220.239.140.187 09:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm . . . interesting point. I suppose what I am saying is mental illness is a significant contributing factor to many aspects of religion. If we agree that the phenomenon described in this section, once interpreted as signs of divine inspiration, are in fact symptoms of one of a variety of abberant mental states, I think this is a criticism. It certainly challenges the traditional religious narrative. Given understanding of how the brain functions is a relatively new phenomenon for us in the 21rst century, and far from complete, it is fair to say understanding in ancient times was deficient. I was planning on bringing in material on the entire notion of a separate non-material component to our existence, i.e. ‘spirit,’ as another expression of misfiring neurons. I am interested by your suggestion we find evidence of religions treating mental illness as legitimate spiritual experiences. This would be quite a challenge! It presumes we use the same language and I do not think we do. Those traditions valuing this kind of behavior will emphatically deny they are signs of mental illness. I am certain they will not take kindly to any suggestion figures important to their faith tradition suffered from what they would see as mental deficits. To concur with this would invalidate the foundations of their faith. I am quite open to suggestions as to how to clarify this point and welcome suggestions and/or creative edits or additional references. I will ponder this further and attempt to see if I can find any external material further clarifying this. Thanks for the input. Nuloy 22:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Reworking my additions to Implausibility of specific beliefs

Hi again. I have scratched quite a bit of what I wrote before and tried a different tack. I would appreciate feedback on whether this works better. Nuloy 23:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


Psychology of Fanaticism

"The fanatic is perpetually incomplete and insecure. He cannot generate self-assurance out of his individual resources -- out of his rejected self -- but finds it only by clinging passionately to whatever (ideological) support (system) he happens to embrace. This passionate attachment is the essence of his blind devotion and religiosity, and he sees in it the source of all virtue and strength.... He easily sees himself as the supporter and defender of the holy cause to which he clings. And he is ready to sacrifice his life." - Eric Hoffer 202.168.50.40 03:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Inaccuracy in "Plurality of Religious Message" Section

The section "Plurality of Religious Message" is inaccurate. Orthodox Judaism does have a belief in reincarnation, called gilgul neshamos. It is also mentioned on the reincarnation page. Please do your homework before making blanket statements about subjects you are unfamiliar with. 24.215.222.202 01:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)LB

Interesting. I was not aware of this. I am also unclear how widespread this belief is within the general Jewish population. According to the article, this appears to be part of the Kabbalah tradition. While this is certainly a Jewish body of inspired liturature, it is not universally embraced by all Jews. I would welcome your insights as to where reincarnation is mentioned in the Torah, or anywhere in the traditional Hebrew scriptures. Of course, within any tradition there are specialized branches, while they exist, they may be the exception proving the rule. That said, I thank you for the information. Before I modify this passage, may I enquire as to whether you or anyone knowns if there is any ‘generally accepted ’ notion of reincarnation in the later traditions of Christianity and Islam? My current understanding is they do not. I am unable to do anything about this at the moment, but will return soon. I welcome any additional comments from you or anyone else as we work on this seciton together. Nuloy 21:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I am the person who made the note above. I am relatively new to Wikipedia, and did not want to change the page myself, so I made the note. I think that the new reference to reincarnation in Judaism (and the relatively minor role it plays) is more accurate. The links to the various entries for Jewish texts makes the entry more accesible to someone wishing to research the issue further. As for your question, reincarnation is not a universally accepted tenet among Jews. I have not fully researched the views on the afterlife of Reform, Conservative and Reconstructionist Judaism, but my understanding is that certain schools of thought within Reform reject resurrection of the dead, and have changed their liturgy accordingly. (See the page for Jewish Eschatology for some of the differences between Orthodox and Reform Judaism on this subject.) I lack sufficient information to say whether Modern Christianity or Islam hold a view on reincarnation. Grimlock613 16:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Your enquiry stimulated a lot of reading on my part. A win-win situation I would say! I have studied some aspects of Judaism, but clearly there is much more to learn. I did look further into the issue of reincarnation as regards to Christianinty and Islam. Again, it appears a small minority of more mystically-minded groups flirt with the notion, but the mainstream of both traditions ephasize resurrection over reincarnation. You understand my point was different traditions do have different content and I was using reincarnation as an example. I still think it serves to prove the point. I would welcome your continued questions and encourage you to take the leap and make edits and additions yourself. I think this page has been growing nicely and is becoming much stronger with increased links within Wikipedia and to many other sites. A lot of what I have done, beyond formal and informal education I already possess, involves intensive surfing, something anyone with dedication to the subject may also do. One question, did you put the flag that now sits at the top of the article? If so, do you feel it needs to remain there or can it be removed? I am also relatively new to this and while I have lots of knowledge in certain areas, I am still a novice when it comes to things like this. While I don't mind a bit of controversy, I think we may have resolved this particular objection - until the next tempest comes along! Take care all. Nuloy 00:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I do not know about how to flag articles. Like I said I am very new to the Wikipedia community. My main objection to the article was the Judaism and reincarnation part of "Plurality of Religious Message", which has been resolved to my satisfaction. Grimlock613 16:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_religion/Archive_3&oldid=867465416"