Religious Fundamentalism Cured By Science

[Padmasana]

Linky!

 

 

A leading neurologist at the University of Oxford said this week that recent developments meant that science may one day be able to identify religious fundamentalism as a “mental illness” and a cure it.

 

During a talk at the Hay Literary Festival in Wales on Wednesday, Kathleen Taylor was asked what positive developments she anticipated in neuroscience in the next 60 years.

 

“One of the surprises may be to see people with certain beliefs as people who can be treated,” she explained, according to The Times of London. “Somebody who has for example become radicalised to a cult ideology – we might stop seeing that as a personal choice that they have chosen as a result of pure free will and may start treating it as some kind of mental disturbance.”

 

“I am not just talking about the obvious candidates like radical Islam or some of the more extreme cults,” she explained. “I am talking about things like the belief that it is OK to beat your children. These beliefs are very harmful but are not normally categorized as mental illness.”

 

“In many ways that could be a very positive thing because there are no doubt beliefs in our society that do a heck of a lot of damage, that really do a lot of harm.”

 

In the introduction to her book, The Brain Supremacy, Taylor noted that scientists needed “to be careful when it comes to developing technologies which can slip through the skull to directly manipulate the brain.”

 

“They cannot be morally neutral, these world-shaping tools; when the aspect of the world in question is a human being, morality inevitably rears its hydra heads,” she wrote. “Technologies which profoundly change our relationship with the world around us cannot simply be tools, to be used for good or evil, if they alter our basic perception of what good and evil are.”

 

I'm worried about the implications of this. What could be an amazingly useful technology for quite a lot of people is going to be inevitably turned into something terrible.

[Voodoo]

I recently pulled this out of my ass. Science makes a lot more sense now. I may be cured.

 

 

 

[The Scottish Guy]

-Removed; on second glance, I don't want to get involved in this-

Edited June 1, 2013 by The Scottish Guy

[Finn 7 five 11]

 

What could be an amazingly useful technology for quite alot of people is going to be inevitably turned into something terrible.

 

Perhaps,I wouldn't say it's inevitable though. Maybe we can manipulate criminals minds so they become normal members of society.

Kinda reminds me of star wars where the empire removes parts of the brain that create feeling of sympathy and such so they can create cold killing machines.

[GrandMaster Smith]

Belief in a religion is a mental illness? ...lol

 

That's like what, the majority of Earth's population?

 

Bet Stalin would've loved this article

[rudy]

Religion, according to me, is just about the broadest term possible, has always existed, shows no signs of going away, and is intricately entangled with almost everything everyone does. So the effects of religion in general are impossible to predict over the long run, and impossible to decisively disentangle from the effects of all the other parts of civilization. And anyway you shouldn't force people to believe a certain thing, or not believe a certain other thing. Besides being a gross violation of human rights as they are generally defined today, it's not possible. And once the scientists invent a "right belief" pill, the "bad guys" will just steal it anyway.

[018361]

On one note Hooray for science! On the other, Oh noes this can be used for mind control assuming it is true. Time to put your tinfoil hats on. #Illuminati jk

[DarrinPA]

 

What could be an amazingly useful technology for quite alot of people is going to be inevitably turned into something terrible.

 

Perhaps,I wouldn't say it's inevitable though. Maybe we can manipulate criminals minds so they become normal members of society.

But what defines crime? An ever changing group of documents that can be changed whenever the people or politicians want it to. This week Jamen Shively a former Microsoft executive came out in hopes of creating the first U.S. national marijuana brand to be sold in America for medicinal use, and for the states that allow recreational use. The Former president of Mexico Vicente Fox said he would rather see Shively selling marijuana legally than a Mexican drug kingpin selling it illegally. But what is the difference if a rich white guy is selling verse a Mexican selling it? One of them needs their mind manipulated while the other is a legitimate business man?

[Finn 7 five 11]

I was leaning towards murderers and rapists. I do see your point though,I considered it when I was posting. First we change murderers and rapists, then it moves onto thieves and petty muggers.

Perhaps this therapy can only be used on people who choose to have it.

[DarrinPA]

Honestly, considering that many neurological problems aren't "cured" but simply "treated" or "masked" I really feel as if they are over-reaching on their ability to cure people of what they are suggesting. And as for the idea of "Religious Fundamentalism", where do you draw the line on that also? Once they are willing to committe crimes in the name of their religion, or when they are too pushey with their beliefs and giving too much money to an organization? These promises are misleading.

[Mr. Scratch]

It's about time this happened,can't wait to be brain washed Clockwork Orange style.

[sivispacem]

Belief in a religion is a mental illness? ...lol

 

That's like what, the majority of Earth's population?

 

Bet Stalin would've loved this article

There's a pretty sizeable distinction between religious belief and religious fundamentalism. A handy definition of fundamentalism-

 

 

A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.

 

I think I've made the argument in other threads about the technical similarity between religious fundamentalism and radicalism, and various mental illnesses. The researchers are right to categorise such behaviours as endemically harmful to society, too. But I also have questions about the further applicability of this research- can it be applied to any kind of radicalism or abnormal (or even deemed-abnormal) social activity? Could an autocratic state start treating political dissidents as if they were mentally ill, much like the Soviet Union and East Germany did during the 1960s through 1980s, and the Russian Federation is rumoured to be currently- but with an actual effect aside from creating more disdain of the government? Could nations like Uganda use the same principles to repress sexual minorities?

[Clem Fandango]

But I also have questions about the further applicability of this research- can it be applied to any kind of radicalism or abnormal (or even deemed-abnormal) social activity? Could an autocratic state start treating political dissidents as if they were mentally ill, much like the Soviet Union and East Germany did during the 1960s through 1980s, and the Russian Federation is rumoured to be currently- but with an actual effect aside from creating more disdain of the government? Could nations like Uganda use the same principles to repress sexual minorities?

Much more likely, it'll be used to treat- what are actually conventionally deemed as- mental illnesses. Most mental illness comes from certain beliefs; social anxiety comes from believing others will be antagonistic towards you and that you'd benefit from saying within your comfort zone, eating disorders stem from a myriad of beliefs about appearance and food, depression arguably stems from certain ingrained beliefs but those are harder to identify. Then there's the matter of phobias, not to mention paedophilia.

 

This technology has a lot of application to mental health, I think it's quite paranoid to think it'll have any political utilisation at all, especially considering that, at present, we don't even use psychotherapy to deal with people with unacceptable beliefs, unless one is of the opinion that sensitivity training and teaching kids about racism and homosexuality constitutes liberal brainwashing or some sh*t. Even so, I can't see the population standing for this, even in the wake of a revolution I doubt anyone would submit to techniques like this being used to physically alter their beliefs.

 

Dystopian fiction is all wank.

[sivispacem]

 

Dystopian fiction is all wank.

Granted. I wasn't really referring to its use in liberal, democratic societies, but in authoritarian and oppressive ones. The Soviet Union and her satellite states have a history of using mental health as a weapon against dissidents and according to various dissidents the Russian government continue to do so, utilising systemic politicised abuse of psychiatry any psychotherapy to suppress dissent and political criticism. Examples like Larisa Arap, Alexey Manannikov and Nadezhda Nizovkina, for instance, and numerous others besides, where the Russian state has incarcerate people who have been unwilling to apologise for dissident activity, or to punish journalists who have written negative commentary on issues as disparate as corruption, the poor state of mental health provisions and neo-Nazism and the rise of the ultra-nationalist far right in Russia. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to see new methods being employed against the same targets.

Edited June 1, 2013 by sivispacem

[IM_YOUR_GOD]

I saw a video or let's just say I heard from someone in high places that this is targeted towards a certain group the west is having issues with. Conventional military drones strikes can be compared to cutting the head off a roach. The destruction is effective but the ideas and thoughts will still linger until they find another one. Excuse my analogy I'm tired as hell. Yet, again.

 

However, I don't see how getting those type to accept this nor the support from the many, many religious people in positions of power.

[ClaudeSpeed1911]

So if i don't share the same viewpoint she have I must be ill makes perfect sense!

 

 

 

 

[Creed Bratton]

Religious fundamentalism isn't an illness, it's a symptom. We need to look at what causes people to become religious fundamentalists.

[Chris Fromage]

Hold on a second.

 

According to this article: I am ill because I believe in God?

That doesn't make any sense if you ask me. I could call her also ill because he has not the ability to see all the signs about the fact that God exists...

[Cosmic Gypsy]

 

Hold on a second.

 

According to this article: I am ill because I believe in God?

That doesn't make any sense if you ask me. I could call her also ill because he has not the ability to see all the signs about the fact that God exists...

No, that's not what the article is saying.

 

The key word for you to take note of would be Fundamentalism.

[Humzz]

Kinda reminds me of this scene:

 

 

 

 

[Clem Fandango]

Dystopian fiction is all wank.

Granted. I wasn't really referring to its use in liberal, democratic societies, but in authoritarian and oppressive ones. The Soviet Union and her satellite states have a history of using mental health as a weapon against dissidents and according to various dissidents the Russian government continue to do so, utilising systemic politicised abuse of psychiatry any psychotherapy to suppress dissent and political criticism. Examples like Larisa Arap, Alexey Manannikov and Nadezhda Nizovkina, for instance, and numerous others besides, where the Russian state has incarcerate people who have been unwilling to apologise for dissident activity, or to punish journalists who have written negative commentary on issues as disparate as corruption, the poor state of mental health provisions and neo-Nazism and the rise of the ultra-nationalist far right in Russia. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to see new methods being employed against the same targets.

True, though I'm not sure how feasible that is. My understanding of this technology was more that it attacks irrational beliefs that are so ingrained that they become reflected in brain chemistry (I'm not sure of the neuroscientific validity of that, but I know anorexia and bulimia can be observed in brain chemistry despite their causes being indisputably social and psychological).

 

What I took from the article was that the brain rewards learned behaviour even though it is unhealthy, and that can be changed. For example, say someone turns to radical Islam because it helps them reconcile their feelings of marginalisation within society and sets them apart from their peers, the brain uses its reward system to keep them on that path (since, in simple terms, it "thinks" it's better in the short term to use the radical beliefs to remedy social strain). Therefore, if the theoretical physical aspect of radicalisation can be interrupted, it would be easy to "treat" the subject.

 

Basically, it deals with coping mechanisms. I doubt it could be used to make someone support a government or give up same-sex relations since it doesn't necessarily "reprogram them."

[Apex]

 

Hold on a second.

 

According to this article: I am ill because I believe in God?

That doesn't make any sense if you ask me. I could call her also ill because he has not the ability to see all the signs about the fact that God exists...

The article has nothing to do with belief in a deity, it is talking about religious fundamentalism. Also you seem very sure about the existence of a creator and that there are plenty of signs. Please show me these "signs".

[na89340qv0n34b09q340]

This kind of reminds me of the people who have stories of being sent to straight camps because they were gay.

 

If a religious fundamentalist honestly believes that they were created by god, their not usually hurting other people, and should be left alone. They might be hurting scientific progress, but if you put progress before people then you're going to have a lot of angry people.

Edited June 1, 2013 by zoo3891

[Chris Fromage]

Hold on a second.

 

According to this article: I am ill because I believe in God?

That doesn't make any sense if you ask me. I could call her also ill because he has not the ability to see all the signs about the fact that God exists...

The article has nothing to do with belief in a deity, it is talking about religious fundamentalism. Also you seem very sure about the existence of a creator and that there are plenty of signs. Please show me these "signs".

If you really want to talk about it, send me a PM.

I won't tell them here because I don't want this topic to turn into another endless discussion about religious...

[El Zilcho]

I wouldn't call spanking children or religious fundamentalism mental illness, rather rampant stupidity. I'm fairly certain there is a difference; the prior has an excuse, the latter is very common.

[Brobinski]

Fundamentalism =/= Radicalism.

 

HTH, Science.

[RomansMoobs]

What could be an amazingly useful technology for quite alot of people is going to be inevitably turned into something terrible.

 

Perhaps,I wouldn't say it's inevitable though. Maybe we can manipulate criminals minds so they become normal members of society.

But what defines crime? An ever changing group of documents that can be changed whenever the people or politicians want it to. This week Jamen Shively a former Microsoft executive came out in hopes of creating the first U.S. national marijuana brand to be sold in America for medicinal use, and for the states that allow recreational use. The Former president of Mexico Vicente Fox said he would rather see Shively selling marijuana legally than a Mexican drug kingpin selling it illegally. But what is the difference if a rich white guy is selling verse a Mexican selling it? One of them needs their mind manipulated while the other is a legitimate business man?

Put it this way, would you rather have an illicit drug lord selling drugs to your child, or would you rather have a regulated system making it harder for kids to acquire the drugs? Fact is, it's easier getting drugs from a dealer than it is buying booze illegally.

[Chunkyman]

Religious fundamentalism isn't an illness, it's a symptom. We need to look at what causes people to become religious fundamentalists.

Pretty much this.

 

I think it develops in children primarily as the result of poor parenting methods, which include controlling children through fear and pain, inflicting moral standards on children that the parents neither follow nor would want inflicted on them, and feeding them bullsh*t stories that their brains have no defense against because they have no critical thinking skills to counter what your telling them.

[sivispacem]

What about aggressive and violent forms of religious radicalism which often manifest themselves in relatively new converts? Fundamentalist Islamism being the obvious example, but there being numerous others besides. I agree that fundamentalism is symptomatic rather than causal, but the reason isn't often tangible- or when it is, is purely interpretive and subjective. For instance, how can one reasonably address the disdain or suspicion someone has for a societal ideology which often drive religious fundamentalism of any kind? Fundamentalism is typified by hostility to modernism and inclusivisim, and is historically and logically revisionist. It isn't based on anything rational or tangible more than, say, Body Dysmorphic Disorder is. It's all about individual perceptions of reality.

[GrandMaster Smith]

I'm curious as to who gets to be behind this and decide what is a mental illness and what is not.

 

I mean where can the line be drawn, first it's radicalism then it's the devout Christians? You can already see here how they're trying to blur the line between fundamentalism and radicalism..

 

 

How can one group of people decide which type of religious beliefs are 'okay' and which are mental illnesses?

 

What's their treatment, labor camps or a hollow point to the dome? Maybe a peaceful evening in the gas chamber or a blissful night in the furnace?