Religious Fundamentalism Could Be Treated As A Mental Illness

[ravishingravi]

"An Oxford University researcher and author specializing in neuroscience has suggested that one day religious fundamentalism may be treated as a curable mental illness. Kathleen Taylor, who describes herself as a "science writer affiliated to the Department of Physiology, Anatomy and Genetics," made the suggestion during a presentation on brain research at the Hay Literary Festival in Wales on Wednesday. In response to a question about the future of neuroscience, Taylor said that "One of the surprises may be to see people with certain beliefs as people who can be treated," The Times of London notes. “Someone 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," Taylor said. “In many ways it could be a very positive thing because there are no doubt beliefs in our society that do a heck of a lot of damage." The author went on to say she wasn't just referring to the "obvious candidates like radical Islam," but also meant such beliefs as the idea that beating children is acceptable. Taylor was not immediately available for comment. This is not the first time Taylor has explored the mind processes of a radical. In 2006, she wrote a book about mind control called Brainwashing: The Science of Thought Control, which explored the science behind the persuasive tactics of such groups as cults and al Qaeda. "We all change our beliefs of course," Taylor said in a YouTube video about the book. "We all persuade each other to do things; we all watch advertising; we all get educated and experience [religions.] Brainwashing, if you like, is the extreme end of that; it's the coercive, forceful, psychological torture type." Taylor also noted that brainwashing, though extreme, is part of a the "much more widespread phenomenon" of persuasion. That is, "how we make people think things that might not be good for them, that they might not otherwise have chosen to think." However, Taylor has also been a voice of caution in terms of the ethics of delving too deeply into the human brain's mysterious workings. "Technologies which directly scan or manipulate brains cannot be neutral tools, as open to commercial exploitation as any new gadget," Taylor wrote in a blog post for The Huffington Post in 2012. "The brain supremacy offers chances to improve human dignity, but it also risks abuse."" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/31/kathleen-taylor-religious-fundamentalism-mental-illness_n_3365896.html 80xKMuA3gKo I hope so. Maybe it can also work for desi secular fundamentalism also. Or any kind of fundamentalism for that matter.

[The Outsider]

I hope so. Maybe it can also work for desi secular fundamentalism also. Or any kind of fundamentalism for that matter.

Kudos for derailing another topic right from the first post! Sure as soon as Modi and his bhakts get on to a flight to England to meet this noble soul and start their treatment.

[bulbul]

They should treat Pseudo secularism as well.

[The Outsider]

They should treat Pseudo secularism as well.

What else do you think ravishiningji was saying in the OP, where he successfully messed up a thread on some research by targeting the "pseudo secularists". Unfortunately, the research is only for fundoos till now, so you guys will have to wait till someone comes up with a cure for "pseudo secularism".

[bulbul]

What else do you think ravishiningji was saying in the OP, where he successfully messed up a thread on some research by targeting the "pseudo secularists". Unfortunately, the research is only for fundoos till now, so you guys will have to wait till someone comes up with a cure for "pseudo secularism".

No one can find any cure to PS,as these people will never admit they are wrong. I am ok with genuine Secularists,who condemn fundamentalists of both sides,but these pseudo secularists are the most dangerous peole who put fuel into fire.

[FischerTal]

No one can find any cure to PS,as these people will never admit they are wrong. I am ok with genuine Secularists,who condemn fundamentalists of both sides,but these pseudo secularists are the most dangerous peole who put fuel into fire.

no cure for such people will ever exist, unfortunately :((

[Rocky Balboa]

If only Hindus and Christians are forced to pray for five times a day from their childhood, pseudo secularists would not exist. When was the last time u met a Muslim pseudo secularist?

[Number]

If only Hindus and Christians are forced to pray for five times a day from their childhood' date=' pseudo secularists would not exist. When was the last time u met a Muslim pseudo secularist?[/quote'] Thread title proved right. :giggle:

[Rocky Balboa]

Thread title proved right. :giggle:

here comes a pseudo secularist. My post proved right.:giggle:

[Muloghonto]

This article is just a polite way of saying that religion itself can be treated as a mental illness, to which i agree. Does not matter if its Mohammed, Krishna, Jesus, Moses or Nanak, its a totally deluded mentality to let the stories of Godly power from dimwits who didnt even know Newton's First Law telling us about a greater reality from 3000 years ago or so is of any validity. The idea of religious fundamentalism being treatable is just an euphemism for religion itself being a treatable illness, because ultimately fundamentalism in itself is not an invalid concept- it means sticking to the fundamentals and distilling every scenario down to simplified basics. In other words, that is exactly how scientific simulation works- sticking to the fundamentals and making simplified equations with assumptive constants. Therefore, scientific process is itself 'fundamentalist'. So is most fact & logic based ideas, such as logistics- there is either a better way to organize logistics or a worse way, there is no 'your opinion on logistics vs mine'. Therefore, logistics is fundamentalist too. There is nothing wrong with fundamentalism when one is being fundamentalist about a substantiated and logical/tangiable topic. With distilled BS like religious holy books, thats the ugly side of fundamentalism.

[surajmal]

I would add Gautam Buddha first to that list

Good Catch.:haha:

[Muloghonto]

I would add Gautam Buddha first to that list

He would be one of the few exceptions of that list IMO, along with Aristotle, Plato & Confucious (Though Confucious was ultimately wrong IMO. Because these are the only gents to've been a big influence and argued in favour of rationalism over divine authority. Rest all are just hacks, claiming divine authority or insight into a divine plan. Its the divine authority part that is delusion. An uneducated guy who says 'see for yourself & I dunno about God' is more empirically correct & credible than the most literate person claiming Godly insight.

[KhanSaab]

Will Modi finally get a visa for England, now that we have this research?

[Muloghonto]

Will Modi finally get a visa for England' date=' now that we have this research?[/quote'] If the legions of mullahs can, Modi is a shoo-in on the basis of this OP.

[surajmal]

He would be one of the few exceptions of that list IMO, along with Aristotle, Plato & Confucious (Though Confucious was ultimately wrong IMO. Because these are the only gents to've been a big influence and argued in favour of rationalism over divine authority. Rest all are just hacks, claiming divine authority or insight into a divine plan. Its the divine authority part that is delusion. An uneducated guy who says 'see for yourself & I dunno about God' is more empirically correct & credible than the most literate person claiming Godly insight.

Spoken like someone who reads wiki entries and passes it off as maha gyan. :hatsoff:

[Muloghonto]

Spoken like someone who reads wiki entries and passes it off as maha gyan. :hatsoff:

how do you figure ? Maybe you should've read Thus Spake Zarathustra and seen Neitzche's opinion on Confucious, Aristotle, Plato, Jesus and Mohammed. He was critical of all of them but deciededly nicer to Aristotle & Plato because they were atleast advocates of rationalism. Buddha also fits that category. The rest do not. Shankaracharya to Mohammed- they are either idiots or charlatans.

[surajmal]

how do you figure ? Maybe you should've read Thus Spake Zarathustra and seen Neitzche's opinion on Confucious, Aristotle, Plato, Jesus and Mohammed. He was critical of all of them but deciededly nicer to Aristotle & Plato because they were atleast advocates of rationalism. Buddha also fits that category.

Read Upanishads. Now read accounts of Early Modern rationalists like Descartes and Spinoza and then later Schopenhauer. (especially the later 2) Then come back to me. Nietzsche wasn't just critical of Aristotelian Logic, he blasted it. To him, Greeks were like this:

[Muloghonto]

Read Upanishads. Now read accounts of Early rationalists like Descartes and Spinoza and then later Schopenhauer. (especially the later 2) Then come back to me.

Hinduism isnt fundamentally based on the Upanishads. It is fundamentally based on the Vedas & the Gita. Which is total bunk.

Nietzsche wasn't just critical of Aristotelian Logic, he blasted it. To him, Greeks were like this:

Yes, Neitzche was highly cantankerous with his critiques. Except a few ones like Schropenhauer very few escaped Neitzche's ire. he did consider the early Greek philosophers to be simpleton nitwits who were wrong but he was nowhere as critical of it as theological philosophy. I kind of feel the same way. I am not a Buddhist nor an Aristotlean and i dont think they were right either. But they are on a whole different plane because they argued in favour of empiricism, not beleif that is the fundamental basis of just about every hindu, muslim, etc. philosopher/guru/prophet. Buddha, Aristotle, Plato, Confucious get a free pass as a result. Its not a fallacy to be wrong, its a fallacy to argue in favour of non-empirical reality, like what every single Hindu philosopher, Muslim, Christian etc. do. They dont get a free pass because divinity & divine will (its direct communion or its interpretation) is fundamental to their entire works.

[surajmal]

Hinduism isnt fundamentally based on the Upanishads. It is fundamentally based on the Vedas & the Gita. Which is total bunk.

Hinduism isn't just one strand. (and Upanishads are commentaries on the Vedas - They are also known as Vedanta - appendix to the vedic hymns) You being an Indian should know that. And if you are going to keep repeating that then you can piss off.

[seedhi]

Obviously this study benefited from the ready availability in the British society of a variety of specimen - assorted muslims including paki terrorists ..