As I have mentioned, there is not only no evidence that supports the god hypothesis, there are also significant indicia of falsehood that come with the notion and its presentation by its advocates. It is a good idea to know what they are:
1. Faith is the single biggest indicator that the whole thing is false. Propositions supported by facts and logic don't require faith. Religion does.
2. Bad logic. The arguments used to support the notion are always logically invalid or unsound--often both. Particularly telling is the constant presence of bullying.
3. The proposition is quite extraordinary. An invisible being? With infinite magic powers? Really?!! The more extraordinary the proposition the greater the burden of proof. The existence of unicorns is a most extraordinary proposition. The existence of a being capable of creating a universe is an even greater one. In fact, I would say that unicorns are much more likely. After all, horses and their numerous relatives exist in fact, as do animals with horns. There is no question that the category of creatures into which unicorns would be grouped does exist. Supernatural beings, on the other hand, have never been shown to exist in any form.
4. Believers not only use bad logic, they use two standards of proof--one for their favorite god hypothesis and another for all other supernatural propositions. This indicates intellectual dishonesty and outright delusion. It robs both believers and their belief of credibility.
5. Past experience with such hypotheses that were proposed to explain something that could not be explained with science shows that such hypotheses have ALWAYS turned out to be fanciful myths once the actual, natural explanation is found. There is no reason to think this line of reasoning, which has always proven false in the past, will suddenly be proven correct in one of the cases yet to be disproven. That reasoning has been shown to be invalid, yet it is the best argument believers have.
6. Past experiences with other religions that even today's believers recognize as false, such as Thor or Osiris. So many false gods suggests that they are all false.
7. Past experience with the force so often used to convert others, and present experience with the bullying used to silence critics and those who disagree as well as the efforts to cover up what they have done in that regard.
8. Present experiences with formations of new religions. They are all the obvious creations of immoral, disturbed charlatans who are seeking to control others to get money or sex or both. The age of a religion doesn't immunize it from having had similar origins. In fact, it makes it more likely because the conditions and standards in the distant past were so much more lax. There was little or no science. Almost everyone lived in a world of myth. Their minds knew little else. There was no mass media with cameras and recording devices to record and report the charlatan's slip-ups. There was no mass communication to report the ludicrous nature of the cult's beliefs to the whole world before it had a chance to smooth away the rough edges and re-package what it had to say. There were almost no notions of mental illness. Schizophrenics who heard voices could easily have been taken seriously--which may explain the presence of "prophets" in ancient writings.
9. The holy writings of the various religions are clearly the work of people with the knowledge of bronze age tribesmen. There are numerous inaccuracies and clear instances of primitive ignorance. Furthermore, they steal their plot lines from earlier writers--just like any other fiction writer.
10. The universe does not show the slightest sign of any design or deity. A theologian once asked a famous naturalist what his study of the creatures of nature revealed about the almighty. The reply: "An extraordinary fondness for beetles." Meaning that since there are so many of beetles and so many species of them, then the almighty must be very fond of them. Could it be that beetles are in fact the "chosen ones"? The more likely explanation is that there is no design or choosing, just nature running its course like a mindless stream.
11. God as an explanatory model is no more useful or valid than saying "magic". Resorting to it serves only to sweep the questions behind an unnecessarily complicating additional layer of mystery. We had mystery enough already, thank you.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Monday, October 18, 2010
Privacy, Theocracy and the Burden of Proof
What goes on between consenting adults in private really is no one's business except the individuals involved. This concept should extend to religion as well as other activities. If people keep their religion private, that privacy should be respected.
The trouble, of course, is that believers don't keep their religion private. They are quite eager to put on a public display and even to force others to abide by it or pretend to believe it.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, the burden of proof generally will fall on the party making an assertion of fact to prove that the assertion is true. This is not just a rule of law but of logic and even civilization.
If you are speaking to a believer who, like almost all of them, wants to make his or her religion part of your government, then you have the right to demand that the believer produce proof that his or her beliefs are facts and not delusions.
"If you want to make your religion part of my government, then I have a right to demand that you prove it's true."
or
"If you want to make your religion part of my government, then you are the one making the assertion that something is true and have to prove it."
This is similar to a point I made in an earlier post about faith in that it makes it clear that the believer ought to have the burden of proof, but this time it isn't a question of the believer simply being logically perverse and childish. This time, the believer has really put his foot in it. He has effectively declared not only that his beliefs are true facts but that everyone in the society should be forced by the government to treat them as such.
The trouble, of course, is that believers don't keep their religion private. They are quite eager to put on a public display and even to force others to abide by it or pretend to believe it.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, the burden of proof generally will fall on the party making an assertion of fact to prove that the assertion is true. This is not just a rule of law but of logic and even civilization.
If you are speaking to a believer who, like almost all of them, wants to make his or her religion part of your government, then you have the right to demand that the believer produce proof that his or her beliefs are facts and not delusions.
"If you want to make your religion part of my government, then I have a right to demand that you prove it's true."
or
"If you want to make your religion part of my government, then you are the one making the assertion that something is true and have to prove it."
This is similar to a point I made in an earlier post about faith in that it makes it clear that the believer ought to have the burden of proof, but this time it isn't a question of the believer simply being logically perverse and childish. This time, the believer has really put his foot in it. He has effectively declared not only that his beliefs are true facts but that everyone in the society should be forced by the government to treat them as such.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Religion Cannot Ever Be a Harmless Delusion II
Religion is an irrational, narcissistic delusion. It poisons the mind and unleashes the id--the quasi-psychopathic two-year old that lurks in all of us. It poisons the mind's ability to think properly by filling it with false "facts" and false standards of reasoning. It makes it impossible for believers even to agree among themselves because they have rejected reason.
They are left with the only tool for settling disagreements when reason has been rejected: Force. And, indeed, their words, their actions, and their history show that they do believe that might makes right. Their holy writings show that their god seems to think the same way, which, to my mind, is yet more proof that he is man-made and made by some very bad men at that. Power should never be allowed to become the tool of a group of people who tend to indulge in a narcissistic rage when their delusion has been challenged. Such people are literally capable of anything.
Even when not in a rage, they will take actions that make sense only to those who share their delusions--in other words, actions that don't make sense. Such actions will have a negative impact on the world around them, including other people. A good example is the unwillingness of many believers to embrace conservation because they believe Jesus is coming back to earth any day now and that the end of the world is near. (They have been believing this for 2,000 years and it hasn't come true yet. One would think by now that they should have figured out what that means.)
This philosophy has the potential to condemn humanity to extinction. My willingness to tolerate the beliefs of others ends when they become a threat to me and my family.
In the past, when the human population was small and technology primitive, cults could find an isolated location so that they did not effect others with the harm caused by their illogical beliefs. (Although in practice they almost never did that, instead they set out to conquer the world, which they continue to work toward to this very day.) Our modern society makes such harmless isolation very difficult--even if some cults try to follow that path rather than the path to world domination that so many are on.
They are left with the only tool for settling disagreements when reason has been rejected: Force. And, indeed, their words, their actions, and their history show that they do believe that might makes right. Their holy writings show that their god seems to think the same way, which, to my mind, is yet more proof that he is man-made and made by some very bad men at that. Power should never be allowed to become the tool of a group of people who tend to indulge in a narcissistic rage when their delusion has been challenged. Such people are literally capable of anything.
Even when not in a rage, they will take actions that make sense only to those who share their delusions--in other words, actions that don't make sense. Such actions will have a negative impact on the world around them, including other people. A good example is the unwillingness of many believers to embrace conservation because they believe Jesus is coming back to earth any day now and that the end of the world is near. (They have been believing this for 2,000 years and it hasn't come true yet. One would think by now that they should have figured out what that means.)
This philosophy has the potential to condemn humanity to extinction. My willingness to tolerate the beliefs of others ends when they become a threat to me and my family.
In the past, when the human population was small and technology primitive, cults could find an isolated location so that they did not effect others with the harm caused by their illogical beliefs. (Although in practice they almost never did that, instead they set out to conquer the world, which they continue to work toward to this very day.) Our modern society makes such harmless isolation very difficult--even if some cults try to follow that path rather than the path to world domination that so many are on.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
When Believers Accuse Atheists of Being Psychopaths
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful."
-Lucius Annaeus Seneca "the Younger," Roman stoic philosopher, writer, and politician (4-65).
Seneca's alleged dictum is useful both for the insight it gives regarding the way populations divide themselves on religious questions and for pointing out that there are two distinct groups of people. No, not believers and atheists but, rather, those who are concerned with truth and those who are concerned with power.
Needless to say, psychopaths are in the latter group. To them everything in the world, including people, is just a thing to be manipulated to meet their desires. As Seneca rightly pointed out, anything that gives those obsessed with power control over others is something they see as useful and desirable.
Religion obviously fits that category very well. All religions are concerned with telling people what to think and what to value, what to like and what to hate, and they are almost all, especially the Abrahamic religions, authoritarian. The members are expected to conform or face god's wrath (not to mention the wrath of the congregation, which represents the real threat--more on that in another post).
Furthermore, they are easy to find and often engage in uniform activities, making them, to the mind of a power seeker, a pre-formed club or constituency (or mob, if need be) that will act in a predictable manner as a group. Better yet, to the minds of such people, they are easy to manipulate without much investigation or guesswork because their thoughts and values are known and they have a clear track record of past behavior.
The religious are not just easy to manipulate because of their pre-conceived and well-known values and thought, but also because of their temperament. For those who see truth as an overriding consideration, joining a group where membership requires the adoption of opinions that are incorrect is not acceptable. Those who do join such groups do so in order to attain the comfort and strength derived from being part of a large and powerful group. In short, they are usually the type who would prefer to be wrong and strong than right and weak--or perceived as weak.
The religious are not just easy to manipulate because of their pre-conceived and well-known values and thought, but also because of their temperament. For those who see truth as an overriding consideration, joining a group where membership requires the adoption of opinions that are incorrect is not acceptable. Those who do join such groups do so in order to attain the comfort and strength derived from being part of a large and powerful group. In short, they are usually the type who would prefer to be wrong and strong than right and weak--or perceived as weak.
Such a power base is too tempting to pass up for people who value power over truth in addition to being consistent with their own internal nature. Whether such people actually believe or not doesn't matter (remember, they are more concerned with power than truth), they will join, conform and seek a prominent place in the church as quickly as they can.
So, how do you know if an atheist is a psychopath? If he belongs to a church and pretends to be a believer, especially if he belongs to more than one church (and tries to keep it secret or at least low key). Confusing you say? Can't tell them from the real believers? Well, consider the converse: If he admits to being an atheist, then he probably isn't a psychopath because such a course of action is one of the most dis-empowering things a person can do in modern society (unless he lives in Sweden or such place where atheism is popular). He may seem angry, depressed or bitter, but those are not the symptoms of psychopathy; they are the symptoms of being an out of the closet atheist in a society that discriminates against atheists.
So, the next time you hear this canard about atheists being psychopathic, say:
"If I were a psychopath, I would never admit to being an atheist. Pretending to believe and cynically manipulating believers would give a psychopath much more gratification than constantly being abused by believers."
This is not to say that all atheists who stay in the closet are psychopaths. Most who do so are simply acting out of fear because of that same track record of behavior by the religious that I mentioned earlier. As I pointed out in earlier posts, the religious unconsciously admit to being psychopathic themselves by admitting they have no internal morality, their words and their holy writings reveal that their god is psychopathic, and their track record as a violent, intolerant mob is well established.
The average believer may not be an actual psychopath, but they often act that way because it is inherent in their belief system and because their congregations are so often in the sway of real psychopaths.
A Lot of People Believe
This is something you hear very often from believers. I have touched on it before. It is a logical fallacy known as the argumentum ad popularum or argument by popularity. The reason it is a fallacy is that the truth of an assertion is not determined by it's popularity; it is determined by objective facts. A good first response is to simply point that out:
"A lot of people used to believe that the Earth was flat, but that didn't make it true."
"Whether something is true doesn't depend on the number of people who believe."
"Facts don't depend on how many people believe in them."
There are a couple of other points to keep in mind here. This "argument" is a reflection of the religious mindset, which, frankly, seems to be the same as the herd mentality. Most religious people are constantly focused on what others think, because they are entirely concerned with their place within the group. They think that having other people agree with them proves them right because all that matters to them is what the rest of the group thinks of them. This is, of course, an obviously false assumption that merely proves how little confidence they have in their own judgment. Sometimes it might help to point this out.
"You think that what others think is always what you should think? Do you really have so little confidence in your own intelligence?"
There is also, however, a whiff of threat in this argument. In many cases, there is a unstated message: "We are many, you are one. You can't win because our might makes us right." Might makes right is a recurring theme in the thought of the religious and pointing it out will work on occasion, but this is probably not one of them. I mention it here because it may be that the person is making a subtle threat. Often believers retaliate by trying to make non-believers unpopular, which can have far reaching effects on one's life. If you think this is the case when you hear the "many people believe" point, then you should not push your arguments any further and be very careful how you treat this person in the future. In fact, you should get away from this person, but, if possible, I recommend buttering the person up a bit before you go.
Remember, believers are not ruled by rationality, they are rationalizers. If you leave them feeling insulted and angry, they will stew about it and start to find all sorts of things wrong with you. One of the better things to say is
"I don't think you need other people to tell you what to think. I think you are smart enough to figure this out on your own."
I recommend this not only to smooth the believer's feathers but also because I believe it is literally true. I think almost anyone is smart enough to figure out that religion is nonsense if allowed to think about it on their own. The trouble is that they are not allowed to do that. But, that is the subject of another post.
"A lot of people used to believe that the Earth was flat, but that didn't make it true."
"Whether something is true doesn't depend on the number of people who believe."
"Facts don't depend on how many people believe in them."
There are a couple of other points to keep in mind here. This "argument" is a reflection of the religious mindset, which, frankly, seems to be the same as the herd mentality. Most religious people are constantly focused on what others think, because they are entirely concerned with their place within the group. They think that having other people agree with them proves them right because all that matters to them is what the rest of the group thinks of them. This is, of course, an obviously false assumption that merely proves how little confidence they have in their own judgment. Sometimes it might help to point this out.
"You think that what others think is always what you should think? Do you really have so little confidence in your own intelligence?"
There is also, however, a whiff of threat in this argument. In many cases, there is a unstated message: "We are many, you are one. You can't win because our might makes us right." Might makes right is a recurring theme in the thought of the religious and pointing it out will work on occasion, but this is probably not one of them. I mention it here because it may be that the person is making a subtle threat. Often believers retaliate by trying to make non-believers unpopular, which can have far reaching effects on one's life. If you think this is the case when you hear the "many people believe" point, then you should not push your arguments any further and be very careful how you treat this person in the future. In fact, you should get away from this person, but, if possible, I recommend buttering the person up a bit before you go.
Remember, believers are not ruled by rationality, they are rationalizers. If you leave them feeling insulted and angry, they will stew about it and start to find all sorts of things wrong with you. One of the better things to say is
"I don't think you need other people to tell you what to think. I think you are smart enough to figure this out on your own."
I recommend this not only to smooth the believer's feathers but also because I believe it is literally true. I think almost anyone is smart enough to figure out that religion is nonsense if allowed to think about it on their own. The trouble is that they are not allowed to do that. But, that is the subject of another post.
Friday, October 15, 2010
Angry Atheists?
Believers often criticize atheists for being angry. Usually when they do this, they are implying that we don't believe in god because we are angry at him for not giving us something that we want in life. A previous post dealt with that "argument" and if the believer makes that point specifically, then deal with it directly.
On the other hand, if a believer simply makes a comment about atheists being angry in general, there is a ready and very useful response:
"If we are angry, it is a result of the way believers treat us."
Every person needs a social support network--a community. We atheists are vulnerable to numerous problems because of our isolation as well as the insults and hostility we face. These problems include depression and its close relative, anger. In some cases, the result can be Post-traumatic Stress Disorder.
Atheists are also vulnerable to bad relationships with the wrong people, being driven by an often unacknowledged emotional need for social support. These bad relationships simply end up fueling our bad feelings. These feelings of depression, anger, and isolation help feed the theist stereotype of us as "angry" (angry at god or other authority figures or the world in general). This anger is for almost all of us a symptom of atheism, not its cause, but it is used to label us all with that obnoxious "rejecting god out of anger" nonsense.
The prejudice and discrimination we face is simply incredible. Just read up on what happened to the Smalkowkis, Prof. Zellner, and Jeremy Hall. My own experiences have been precisely analogous to the things they went through. Any atheist who doesn't either stay in the closet or live in a protected environment has had similar experiences--though I must admit many of them seem to try to minimize what happened or even stay silent for fear of further victimization.
The fact that believers seem oblivious to the inevitable effects of the way they treat us tells me that they have not internalized the golden rule. I have no doubt that if I treated them in the way they do me, I would have long since been murdered and rotting in a shallow grave right now. How do I know this? Because just such threats were made against me for merely protesting the way I was treated.
Everything an atheist says and does is scrutinized for "proof" of our "obvious" moral degeneracy. Remember we are not "moral" in the believers' eyes because we don't accept "authority". We actually use our own minds to figure out what is right and wrong. Believers can say and do things that are immoral or insane and suffer no ill consequences--in fact they are often rewarded for it, provided it is what the authority figures wanted. (That is one of the reasons that religious morality is not morality at all--it is obedience. They don't know this, however.) Often these immoral and insane behaviors are directed at atheists for daring to think they are individuals with minds of their own.
What really makes the whole scenario bizarre and a sign of evil is that the believers act as if none of this occurs and as if we are somehow "intolerant" of them. This situation is nothing less than Kafkaesque and is typical of the sort of "gaslighting" one might expect if one were targeted by a manipulative psychopath. In fact, this "gaslighting" is one of the many signs that religion is often either a symptom of a mental illness or a type of mental illness. But, that will be the subject of a later post.
On the other hand, if a believer simply makes a comment about atheists being angry in general, there is a ready and very useful response:
"If we are angry, it is a result of the way believers treat us."
Every person needs a social support network--a community. We atheists are vulnerable to numerous problems because of our isolation as well as the insults and hostility we face. These problems include depression and its close relative, anger. In some cases, the result can be Post-traumatic Stress Disorder.
Atheists are also vulnerable to bad relationships with the wrong people, being driven by an often unacknowledged emotional need for social support. These bad relationships simply end up fueling our bad feelings. These feelings of depression, anger, and isolation help feed the theist stereotype of us as "angry" (angry at god or other authority figures or the world in general). This anger is for almost all of us a symptom of atheism, not its cause, but it is used to label us all with that obnoxious "rejecting god out of anger" nonsense.
The prejudice and discrimination we face is simply incredible. Just read up on what happened to the Smalkowkis, Prof. Zellner, and Jeremy Hall. My own experiences have been precisely analogous to the things they went through. Any atheist who doesn't either stay in the closet or live in a protected environment has had similar experiences--though I must admit many of them seem to try to minimize what happened or even stay silent for fear of further victimization.
The fact that believers seem oblivious to the inevitable effects of the way they treat us tells me that they have not internalized the golden rule. I have no doubt that if I treated them in the way they do me, I would have long since been murdered and rotting in a shallow grave right now. How do I know this? Because just such threats were made against me for merely protesting the way I was treated.
Everything an atheist says and does is scrutinized for "proof" of our "obvious" moral degeneracy. Remember we are not "moral" in the believers' eyes because we don't accept "authority". We actually use our own minds to figure out what is right and wrong. Believers can say and do things that are immoral or insane and suffer no ill consequences--in fact they are often rewarded for it, provided it is what the authority figures wanted. (That is one of the reasons that religious morality is not morality at all--it is obedience. They don't know this, however.) Often these immoral and insane behaviors are directed at atheists for daring to think they are individuals with minds of their own.
What really makes the whole scenario bizarre and a sign of evil is that the believers act as if none of this occurs and as if we are somehow "intolerant" of them. This situation is nothing less than Kafkaesque and is typical of the sort of "gaslighting" one might expect if one were targeted by a manipulative psychopath. In fact, this "gaslighting" is one of the many signs that religion is often either a symptom of a mental illness or a type of mental illness. But, that will be the subject of a later post.
Religion As Narcissistic Delusion
Think about this question: What is the first step in religion and one of its most perplexing aspects to those of us who aren't drinking the Kool-aid?
The whole phenomenon of religion springs from the fact that some people can't admit when they don't know the answer to a question. No one knows how or why the universe began, but some people just can't say that they don't know the answer to such an important question. They would rather spin tales of fantastical nonsense than admit it.
What does it take to admit you don't know something? Humility and honesty. What kind of person is so lacking in humility that he can't be honest about his lack of knowledge? Such people are called Narcissists.
A small amount of narcissism, or self-love, is necessary for a person to be emotionally healthy. After all, it's not healthy to hate yourself and it's not healthy if you don't care about yourself just a little. But, when you would rather mislead yourself and your loved ones than admit to a flaw, then your ego is out of control. Narcissism isn't just a bad case of braggadocio--as many believe it is--rather, it is a condition in which the sufferer has lost contact with reality.
I have noticed other signs that the religious are often people whose egos are out of control: They can't admit when they did something wrong. They can't apologize or accept an apology. They clearly think that their feelings are more important than yours (or your life or anything in your life). The indulge in scapegoating, projecting. splitting, and black and white thinking. They exhibit rigid outward conformity and a sense of entitlement. They are holier than thou busybodies who think they have the right to be judge, jury and executioner of anyone meeting their disapproval. Needless to say they have an inability to deal with fears in a rational manner and see all threats as immediate. They need to feel like they are very important and will sacrifice even the truth (and you or anyone not in their group) in order to protect or elevate their social status.
Such people are suffering from a pathological form of narcissism. It is pathological because it prevents them from dealing with reality. Here is a link to an article by an expert on narcissism concerning the relationship between narcissism and religion. I don't agree with everything it says, but it is a good starting point.
This is more true of some believers than others--as is the case with any observation about the tendency of a group. These particular groups, however, consist, for the most part, of people who choose in some manner to belong to the group. In such cases tendencies within the group tend to be self-selecting because members or potential members of the group who don't have that trait simply won't fit in as well and often leave.
At the same time, this particular group is a bifurcated one; it consists of sheep and shepherds. Those who belong or join can choose to try to fit in with either subgroup. Naturally, those with a more pathological version of narcissism will gravitate toward the leadership group and try to become a leader of some sort because it fits the self-image, which is driven by the needs of their egos.
When a person has narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) in general, meaning that he would have that illness regardless of which groups he belongs to, then combining that illness with religion makes the person much more dangerous. A non-religious person with NPD may think of himself as the greatest human, but he is still only human even in his own mind. A religious person with NPD can start to believe he is more than that. He can start to believe that he speaks for god, is god's messenger, an angel sent to Earth, god's child, part of god, or even god himself.
The further along that spectrum the person is, the more likely he is to want to found his own church, which the others will call a cult. They will call it a cult because it is a competitor and because its newness will make the falsehood of its beliefs more "obvious" to members of established religions.
The difference between a cult and a religion really comes down to size, i.e., numbers. Once there are too many members for the other religions to safely treat them as kooks, they will suddenly be brought into the ecumenical tent. This usually only happens after the leader dies, however, because the founder is usually so disturbed that his behavior will be too unacceptable for the established cults' leaders.
I offer this observation as a way to understand the extent to which religion serves the function of propping up fragile egos (and empowering truly dangerous mentally ill people) so that non-believers can have a better idea of what type of person they are dealing with. The average believer's ego is very much on the line whenever his religion comes up, so tread carefully. In extreme cases, such as cult leaders and some clergy, it's best to avoid the person altogether for your own protection.
The whole phenomenon of religion springs from the fact that some people can't admit when they don't know the answer to a question. No one knows how or why the universe began, but some people just can't say that they don't know the answer to such an important question. They would rather spin tales of fantastical nonsense than admit it.
What does it take to admit you don't know something? Humility and honesty. What kind of person is so lacking in humility that he can't be honest about his lack of knowledge? Such people are called Narcissists.
A small amount of narcissism, or self-love, is necessary for a person to be emotionally healthy. After all, it's not healthy to hate yourself and it's not healthy if you don't care about yourself just a little. But, when you would rather mislead yourself and your loved ones than admit to a flaw, then your ego is out of control. Narcissism isn't just a bad case of braggadocio--as many believe it is--rather, it is a condition in which the sufferer has lost contact with reality.
I have noticed other signs that the religious are often people whose egos are out of control: They can't admit when they did something wrong. They can't apologize or accept an apology. They clearly think that their feelings are more important than yours (or your life or anything in your life). The indulge in scapegoating, projecting. splitting, and black and white thinking. They exhibit rigid outward conformity and a sense of entitlement. They are holier than thou busybodies who think they have the right to be judge, jury and executioner of anyone meeting their disapproval. Needless to say they have an inability to deal with fears in a rational manner and see all threats as immediate. They need to feel like they are very important and will sacrifice even the truth (and you or anyone not in their group) in order to protect or elevate their social status.
Such people are suffering from a pathological form of narcissism. It is pathological because it prevents them from dealing with reality. Here is a link to an article by an expert on narcissism concerning the relationship between narcissism and religion. I don't agree with everything it says, but it is a good starting point.
This is more true of some believers than others--as is the case with any observation about the tendency of a group. These particular groups, however, consist, for the most part, of people who choose in some manner to belong to the group. In such cases tendencies within the group tend to be self-selecting because members or potential members of the group who don't have that trait simply won't fit in as well and often leave.
At the same time, this particular group is a bifurcated one; it consists of sheep and shepherds. Those who belong or join can choose to try to fit in with either subgroup. Naturally, those with a more pathological version of narcissism will gravitate toward the leadership group and try to become a leader of some sort because it fits the self-image, which is driven by the needs of their egos.
When a person has narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) in general, meaning that he would have that illness regardless of which groups he belongs to, then combining that illness with religion makes the person much more dangerous. A non-religious person with NPD may think of himself as the greatest human, but he is still only human even in his own mind. A religious person with NPD can start to believe he is more than that. He can start to believe that he speaks for god, is god's messenger, an angel sent to Earth, god's child, part of god, or even god himself.
The further along that spectrum the person is, the more likely he is to want to found his own church, which the others will call a cult. They will call it a cult because it is a competitor and because its newness will make the falsehood of its beliefs more "obvious" to members of established religions.
The difference between a cult and a religion really comes down to size, i.e., numbers. Once there are too many members for the other religions to safely treat them as kooks, they will suddenly be brought into the ecumenical tent. This usually only happens after the leader dies, however, because the founder is usually so disturbed that his behavior will be too unacceptable for the established cults' leaders.
I offer this observation as a way to understand the extent to which religion serves the function of propping up fragile egos (and empowering truly dangerous mentally ill people) so that non-believers can have a better idea of what type of person they are dealing with. The average believer's ego is very much on the line whenever his religion comes up, so tread carefully. In extreme cases, such as cult leaders and some clergy, it's best to avoid the person altogether for your own protection.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)