Belief in a Creator a mental disorder

[WayneB]

They get disability.

Joel, I understand your concern but just don't share it. The article itself is junk science and not to be taken too seriously in my opinion.

It is junk science, but the problem is almost EVERYTHING coming out of these idiots brains these days is junk science. satan is using the so-called scientists to convince the rest of the world that you and I are lunatics.

If you don't believe me, just find a science forum and go talk about creation. Many atheistic scientists quite literally consider christians to be clinically insane, and as AK is alluding to, it will not be long at this rate before they start to have us put in institutions or stripped of our rights as citizens.

How about a non-Biblical quote...

"So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself -- nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance." Franklin D. Roosevelt, First Inaugural Address, Saturday, March 4, 1933.

How does that apply to this issue?

Often we allow ourselves to become paralyzed with fear in that we forget our one and true focus and commission.

Let me add one more comment if I may...

I was just reading an article in the Wall Street Journal titled, "Crude Palestinian Weapon Creates Israeli Dilemma" (page A8, Friday , May 18, 2007). The article is about a homemade "Qassam" rocket that is being used by Palestian militants to terrorize Israeli civilians. It isn't much of a killing machine but it has "an oversize influence in the conflict." It has no accuracy and it its warhead is very small...but it is wreaking havoc when fired into a population center.

Point? Articles like these are "Qassam" rockets.

[Guest yod]

Well I am NOT crazy...and neither am I!

[apothanein kerdos]

Do you realize what happens to people when they have a mental disorder, or are deemed to have a mental disorder?

They get disability.

Joel, I understand your concern but just don't share it. The article itself is junk science and not to be taken too seriously in my opinion.

It is junk science...but junk science often gets accepted.

Often we allow ourselves to become paralyzed with fear in that we forget our one and true focus and commission.

I'm not calling for us to become paralyzed. I'm trying to show how our lack of action has caused this...and how our self-removal from the academy has likewise caused this. It's a call for Christians to get back to engaging the culture at every level.

[Tubal-Cain]

There is nothing in the abstract that even mentions mental disorder.

Resistance to certain scientific ideas derives in large part from assumptions and biases that can be demonstrated experimentally in young children and that

may persist into adulthood. In particular, both adults and children resist acquiring scientific information that clashes with common-sense intuitions about the physical and psychological domains. Additionally, when learning information from other people, both adults and children are sensitive to the trustworthiness of the source of that information. Resistance to science, then, is particularly exaggerated in societies where nonscientific ideologies have the advantages of being both grounded in common sense and transmitted by trustworthy sources....

This paragraph seems to clearly be true.

The examples so far concern people's common-sense understanding of the physical world, but their intuitive psychology also contributes to their resistance to

science. One important bias is that children naturally see the world in terms of design and purpose. For instance, 4-year-olds insist that everything has a purpose, including lions ("to go in the zoo") and clouds ("for raining"), a propensity called "promiscuous teleology" (15).

I think it is true that children are unaware of the scientific explanation of things and may resort to more simplistic explanations. They may be unaware of what lions are like in the wild or how and why clouds form.

Additionally, when asked about the origin of animals and people, children spontaneously tend to provide and prefer creationist explanations (16). Just as children's intuitions about the physical world make it difficult for them to accept that Earth is a sphere, their psychological intuitions about agency and design make it difficult for them to accept the processes of evolution....

Is this surprising? Of course a child is more likely to accept a simple creationist explanation than a complex scientific idea like evolution.

[apothanein kerdos]

There is nothing in the abstract that even mentions mental disorder.

Resistance to certain scientific ideas derives in large part from assumptions and biases that can be demonstrated experimentally in young children and that

may persist into adulthood. In particular, both adults and children resist acquiring scientific information that clashes with common-sense intuitions about the physical and psychological domains. Additionally, when learning information from other people, both adults and children are sensitive to the trustworthiness of the source of that information. Resistance to science, then, is particularly exaggerated in societies where nonscientific ideologies have the advantages of being both grounded in common sense and transmitted by trustworthy sources....

This paragraph seems to clearly be true.

The examples so far concern people's common-sense understanding of the physical world, but their intuitive psychology also contributes to their resistance to

science. One important bias is that children naturally see the world in terms of design and purpose. For instance, 4-year-olds insist that everything has a purpose, including lions ("to go in the zoo") and clouds ("for raining"), a propensity called "promiscuous teleology" (15).

I think it is true that children are unaware of the scientific explanation of things and may resort to more simplistic explanations. They may be unaware of what lions are like in the wild or how and why clouds form.

Additionally, when asked about the origin of animals and people, children spontaneously tend to provide and prefer creationist explanations (16). Just as children's intuitions about the physical world make it difficult for them to accept that Earth is a sphere, their psychological intuitions about agency and design make it difficult for them to accept the processes of evolution....

Is this surprising? Of course a child is more likely to accept a simple creationist explanation than a complex scientific idea like evolution.

Did you read the entire article?

It goes on to equate people with an infantile disorder of the mind. In other words, those that accept God as a creator, or say this world has purpose, have a mental defect where they haven't matured.

Now, Tubal, either you don't believe God created this world, or you fall under this. Which is it? I mean, I've been reading your involvement in topics...you're a better apologist for atheism than most atheists on this board.

[Tubal-Cain]

Did you read the entire article?

No, as apparently I am unable to do so without buying the magazine, right? If there is a place to read it all without buying anything I'd read it (yes, I'm cheap, especially when the article doesn't sound very convincing from your description). Perhaps you can present an outline of their argument and I can comment on that.

Now, Tubal, either you don't believe God created this world, or you fall under this. Which is it? I mean, I've been reading your involvement in topics...you're a better apologist for atheism than most atheists on this board.

If you've been reading my posts then you know I believe God created the world. It's just that science poses no threat to my faith at all so I will agree with atheists on most scientific issues that come up here.

[apothanein kerdos]

Did you read the entire article?

No, as apparently I am unable to do so without buying the magazine, right? If there is a place to read it all without buying anything I'd read it (yes, I'm cheap, especially when the article doesn't sound very convincing from your description). Perhaps you can present an outline of their argument and I can comment on that.

Now, Tubal, either you don't believe God created this world, or you fall under this. Which is it? I mean, I've been reading your involvement in topics...you're a better apologist for atheism than most atheists on this board.

If you've been reading my posts then you know I believe God created the world. It's just that science poses no threat to my faith at all so I will agree with atheists on most scientific issues that come up here.

The article talks about how Americans resist scientific findings in certain areas and how this shows an underdeveloped mind. In fact, it says it is a problem because of the following:

"This resistance to science has important social implications, because a scientifically ignorant public is unprepared to evaluate policies about global warming, vaccination, genetically modified organisms, stem cell research, and cloning."

In other words, such resistance poses a threat and needs to be dealt with politically. It then begins to make inferences about what to do with children of people who believe in a "supernatural," "immaterial" world. People who have non-scientific beliefs, like the belief in the soul, are part of the problem.

It talks about how children are not born tabula rosa, but instead are born with a scientific intuition. Parents or influential adults, however, begin to ruin this scientific intuition with beliefs in God.

The article concludes with:

"These developmental data suggest that resistance to science will arise in children when scientific claims clash with early emerging, intuitive expectations. This resistance will persist through adulthood if the scientific claims are contested within a society, and it will be especially strong if there is a nonscientific alternative that is rooted in common sense and championed by people who are thought of as reliable and trustworthy. This is the current situation in the United States, with regard to the central tenets of neuroscience and evolutionary biology. These concepts clash with intuitive beliefs about the immaterial nature of the soul and the purposeful design of humans and other animals, and (in the United States) these beliefs are particularly likely to be endorsed and transmitted by trusted religious and political authorities" (emphasis added)

This is a serious thing. When they begin to:

1) Make inferences that people who believe in the immaterial soul are shut off to scientific reasoning

2) Even if people accept theistic evolution (such as yourself, Tubal), their teaching religion - that there is a God, that the soul exists, that Jesus died for us, etc - will stunt the intellectual growth of a child.

3) This can harm a society if people are allowed to continue to teach children these things

Though they do not specifically say, "We must therefore remove children from the household," it does leave the reader with one option. If these findings are true, then we must stop parents and authority figures from teaching their children about Christ.

This was not published in some backwoods magazine. This was not published in some radical magazine. It was published in one of the most accepted magazines in the field of science.

Christians need to begin engaging the culture before it's too late. Persecution is bad enough when it happens to us, but we should find favor from God in such a thing. However, having your child taken away and hid from the salvation you have found in Christ is one of the worst things that could happen.

[Tubal-Cain]

Thanks for the summary AK. Obviously scientific ignorance does impact real world policies. It is also clear that some religious people remain in ignorance due to their religion. For example, on another board I ran across a Muslim who believed that the earth was the center of the universe and everything in the sky orbits around it. Why did he believe this? Because his interpretation of the Quran demanded it. Since we have public education, scientific ignorance will be partially dealt with politically (i.e., through the government).

However, the author(s) of this article seem(s) to have overreached and abandoned science to some extent. Although it is true that some religious beliefs could hamper the learning of science it is also true that other religious beliefs do not hamper the learning of science. Saying that infants are born with a scientific intuition seems untestable.

I agree with you that we need to engage the culture. Specifically, I think we need to engage in philosophy and science. On the philosophical level we can show the leaps of logic that exist in this article. On the scientific level we can show that our religion does not hamper our scientific learning. Ultimately I don't see the teaching of religion being outlawed any time soon.

[None]

THIS is why we need to stop this endless bickering over "6 days vs a billion years." We've been so busy fighting each other that we're getting ready to face a huge persecution. Do you realize what happens to people when they have a mental disorder, or are deemed to have a mental disorder? They can lose custody of their children. They can be fired from jobs. It can be used against them in competency hearings as parents.

We have Dawkins on one side, gaining massive support I might add, saying that teaching your child religion is child abuse. On the other side, we have people saying if you believe in a purpose for the universe, or that God made everything with a purpose, you have a mental disorder.

It's one thing when we're persecuted. It's another when they take your children away for "re-education." Don't give me this, "God is in control" speech. We're messing up and because we're messing up our children may one day suffer for it.

That's what I was trying to say here.

That is right around the corner and some things we make our stand about, knowing it to be scripturally true, can be used to take our children away one day.

[hmh]

This article brings up some issues the "scientific" community is trying to get accepted as truth. The first being THERE IS NO GOD! We all evolved beings from monkeys, not created by God as it has been hammered since the publication of Darwin's book about the natural order of things. They have been successful in getting evolution taught in school and creation as being religious, which is forbidden due to the false teachings of the 'Separation of Church and State" doctrine. Second is the hysteria of global warming, which is more of a political ideology based on incomplete scientific studies and half truths. If you don't believe in the global warming ideology, you are ridiculed and black listed. The third is the use of calling people "mentally incompetent." If you are deemed to be mentally incometent or considered to have a mental disorder, you lose certain rights. You can also lose the ability to hold certain jobs and it becomes harder to find employment due to liability issues. These outright attacks against God and anyone who would dare to question their ideology and "scientific studies" is based on ego, politics, and the feeling that they are superior to others.