My response to a homeschool ad. Maybe mean, but am I wrong?

[Surlethe]

Am I missing some sarcasm here? If belief isn't a choice, then we shouldn't see any deconverted fundamentalists, and Christianity shouldn't have spread in the first place.

There's some degree of choice, I think. You can't make yourself believe in god, but you can probably be convinced by someone when you're in an emotionally vulnerable state. I don't know if that's considered a choice to believe or not.

My point was religion is definitely a choice; I didn't quite make that clear. Since Christianity spread in the first place, we see deconverted fundies, and the like, then of course religion is a choice.

[Zero]

Could it be that she simply pulled the stories of the friends out of her ass in an attempt to defend her position? Considering that the children are fundamentalist morons (a relatively safe assumption), I find it not very likely that they would chose such acquaintances.
However, taking into account that the children appear to be in middle school at present increases this probability, as it's the time, in my experience, when some adolescents begin to experiment with the substances she mentioned. This does not fully explain, though, why the fundies would acquire suicidal friends.

Or perhaps her indoctrination didn't fully work?

There are fundies who cut, and if you read up on all the "born again" shit, many fundies have had drug problems earlier in life. It's just a continuation of the cycle. And cutting doesn't necessarily imply that someone is suicidal. Some people use it as some kind of tool for dealing with emotions, although I have no idea why.

Fundies sometimes ARE those kinds of people. The religious idealism is generally a cover for much more fucked up things.

[Superman]

You can't have it both ways. Either it's a good thing for children to be exposed to the painful reality of the world--the potsmoking, cutting, and binge-drinking real world--or it's not. What's the mother to do? You tell her she's wrong if she tries to protect her child from the real world, then you tell her she's wrong for letting her child experience the real world. Which is it?

Thanks for missing his point. The problem is not them meeting such people but choosing them for friends.

Congrats on giving your child the skills needed to find such healthy friends.

Exposure to does not equal become friends with.

You tell her she's wrong if she tries to protect her child from the real world, then you tell her she's wrong for letting her child experience the real world.

No he doesn't. Superman tells her she's wrong for protecting her child from the real world, and then chastizes her for failing to equip the child to deal with it, as evidenced by his phenominally bad choice of company.
If she had let the kid experience the real world maybe he would have learned that hanging around with such people is a Bad Idea (TM).

Thanks for clarifying, Bruce. That's exactly what I meant. I was worried that I wasn't being clear, but I think that most people understood what I was trying to say.

It's not just that the child is choosing to have these friends that the responder mentioned; just like with alcoholics (who are also generally abuse survivors), these abuse survivor types are almost drawn to one another. It's a reflection on the kid, which is a reflection of the parent and family. Home schooling by religious parents is just another symptom of their general antisocial, narcissistic, paranoid, alcoholic, (take your pick) dysfunctional family system. But you know what? It all adds up to abuse that's going to screw up the kids so that they'll go on to continue their cycle of dysfunction. That's the sad part. This person is so oblivious to the fact that she's damaging her kid; she uses examples that only prove the fucking point.

My point was religion is definitely a choice; I didn't quite make that clear. Since Christianity spread in the first place, we see deconverted fundies, and the like, then of course religion is a choice.

Surlethe, the more I work with these abuse survivor types, the more I am coming to believe that they are NOT choosing to follow this fantasy driven thinking, at least not on any kind of conscious level. It's hard to believe that they can honestly believe in some of nonsense that comes out of their mouths, but I think they honestly do.

We see deconverted fundies just like we see people with any type of personality disorder learn to later grow emotionally. A psychiatrist I sometimes work with explained that when people experience trauma (abuse or neglect) as children, their mental development seems to halt and they start relying on more primitive means of survival. According to him, this can even result in all sorts of personality disorders, and even dissociation, which is akin to death feigning behaviors in lower animals. Since they were traumatized by parents during their developmental years, survival instincts kicked in and they literally learned that that cannot trust anyone. It's not just that this was learned; it's more like it NEVER developed. Instead of a healthy relationship with a parent, which is essential for any social species during developmental years, they instead experienced a form of abuse, neglect or both. I see this with the people I'm working with. They are often grown adults who act like children.

With addicts and alcoholics, AA has a high success rate because of the fact that the meetings help offer this healthy socialization that they never received as children. The fellowship that it provides might sort of give them back their access to the mechanisms of the brain that they couldn't develop in an abusive family. Honest and open fellowship, especially in terms of desperately trying to stop using a substance, seem to cause emotional growth. Yes, they too proclaim faith in a “higher power,” but they also go to great lengths to explain that it is something they don’t define; it just needs to represent something outside of them. This sort of attitude of acceptance can also help them learn to accept one another, despite their various backgrounds.

Fundie fellowship, on the other hand, provides reinforcement of the general dysfunction. They condone and encourage paranoia, anti intellectualism, various forms of child abuse, etc. There's nothing healthy there.

Anyway, my point is that I think “deconverted” fundies are the types who sort of recovered. Fundies, like the addicts who are active in their addictions, are not consciously choosing to believe in childlike illusions; rather, they're acting out an unhealthy pathology of trauma survival. Most of us easily realize how silly they sound when they say things like a talking snake told Eve to eat that fruit, but, like a child believing in Santa Clause, they’re perfectly willing to accept it and become vehemently defensive about it.

I didn't mean to write this much... Whoa...

[Superman]

By the way Jew, that woman mentioned that her child's friend gave him a bad of marijuana as a birthday present. Sounds like a friend to me.

[Surlethe]

The thrust of your exposition can be summed up as follows: fundamentalists exhibit certain characteristics, and a person exhibits these characteristics if he's been traumatised; thus, fundamentalists are victims of past trauma, and do not believe of their own free will. That is a fallacy of affirming the consequent.

That said, you do raise valid points throughout the post:

My point was religion is definitely a choice; I didn't quite make that clear. Since Christianity spread in the first place, we see deconverted fundies, and the like, then of course religion is a choice.

Surlethe, the more I work with these abuse survivor types, the more I am coming to believe that they are NOT choosing to follow this fantasy driven thinking, at least not on any kind of conscious level. It's hard to believe that they can honestly believe in some of nonsense that comes out of their mouths, but I think they honestly do.

Indeed. Anyone who has been around conservative Christians knows they do, in fact, honestly believe everything they say.

We see deconverted fundies just like we see people with any type of personality disorder learn to later grow emotionally. A psychiatrist I sometimes work with explained that when people experience trauma (abuse or neglect) as children, their mental development seems to halt and they start relying on more primitive means of survival. According to him, this can even result in all sorts of personality disorders, and even dissociation, which is akin to death feigning behaviors in lower animals. Since they were traumatized by parents during their developmental years, survival instincts kicked in and they literally learned that that cannot trust anyone. It's not just that this was learned; it's more like it NEVER developed. Instead of a healthy relationship with a parent, which is essential for any social species during developmental years, they instead experienced a form of abuse, neglect or both. I see this with the people I'm working with. They are often grown adults who act like children.

With addicts and alcoholics, AA has a high success rate because of the fact that the meetings help offer this healthy socialization that they never received as children. The fellowship that it provides might sort of give them back their access to the mechanisms of the brain that they couldn't develop in an abusive family. Honest and open fellowship, especially in terms of desperately trying to stop using a substance, seem to cause emotional growth. Yes, they too proclaim faith in a “higher power,” but they also go to great lengths to explain that it is something they don’t define; it just needs to represent something outside of them. This sort of attitude of acceptance can also help them learn to accept one another, despite their various backgrounds.

Fundie fellowship, on the other hand, provides reinforcement of the general dysfunction. They condone and encourage paranoia, anti intellectualism, various forms of child abuse, etc. There's nothing healthy there.

Anyway, my point is that I think “deconverted” fundies are the types who sort of recovered. Fundies, like the addicts who are active in their addictions, are not consciously choosing to believe in childlike illusions; rather, they're acting out an unhealthy pathology of trauma survival.

This is an interesting point of view, though your argument for it is flawed (as I pointed out above); I'd postulate an alternative reason for continued belief in the ridiculous: belief is a fundamentalist's emotional security, much like a toddler's security blanket. I've discussed in some length before the similarities between the fundamentalist mindset and the child's mindset, but at the core of the fundamentalist's position is his choice to be this way: it's known as being born again. I've run across fundies who were surprised I have been a Christian since I was young; they honestly believe one must make a conscious, "informed" choice to believe; and after the choice, belief becomes habit, just as carrying a blanket becomes a toddler's habit.

I think, in the case of the OP, the child's bad habits are a direct result of a sudden lack of structure in his life, rather than maladjustment because of abuse. While no social life certainly would play its role (I'm not defending the mother or her homeschooling), the child has abruptly made the transition from an omnipresent mother directing every aspect of his life to the relative freedom of school. He is now free to explore areas which have been forbidden him forever. That freedom, combined with his previous lack of social experience, contributed to his keeping bad company.

Most of us easily realize how silly they sound when they say things like a talking snake told Eve to eat that fruit, but, like a child believing in Santa Clause, they’re perfectly willing to accept it and become vehemently defensive about it.

This is the point of fundamentalists' faith: it's a way of sticking fingers in ears and going "LALALALALA!~ I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" It's the consequence of a conscious choice to ignore facts, rather than the result of an unwitting belief.

[The Silence and I]

I had a guy at a gay content board I frequent using the bible to justify slavery, and not just antebellum south, either.
Modern...

Well it's not actually hard to do. The bible is stuffed to the covers with passages that support slavery. Why the hell would a loving god not want his creations enslaving each other for trivial reasons?

(Considering the lack of successful sarcasim detection lately I provide a disclaimer: I am being sarcastic. There, I said it.)

[Superman]

belief is a fundamentalist's emotional security, much like a toddler's security blanket. I've discussed in some length before the similarities between the fundamentalist mindset and the child's mindset

We're definitely in agreement on this one. Being a trauma survivor also means that these people are sort of hyper vigilant against situations that leave them with feelings of powerlessness. This is why alcoholics, or adult children of alcoholics, for example, often compulsively perform rituals such as having to put 8 coats of a paint on their house (when one or two is what a rational person would do), buy 20 + packages of white t shirts at the store (when one package would have sufficed), write out lists of the days activities and become extremely anxious if any unanticipated deviation arises, etc. They often become compulsive perfectionists and develop anxiety and personality disorders like OCD.

I would associate this type of primitive survival mechanism with the fundamentalist's belief system, your "security blanket." Not only is it sort of an all-encompassing method of control, but it also allows them to stay in a childlike state, complete with a parent (God) with whom they know will never harm them the way their own parent did.

I'm sure you have seen how fundamentalists' react when sort of cornered, through debate for example, and realize that the possibility exists that they might be wrong. They often become very emotional. I've seen a grown man cry, and a girl (in her twenties, I think) become so full of rage that she looked like she wanted to kill me. Even if I am totally wrong about fundamentalism being a manifestation of trauma survival, this alone leads me to think that something pretty deep is happening. The inability to regulate duration and magnitude of one's own emotions has been summed up and labeled, "Deficiencies of Affect Regulation," and, once again, this has been shown to exist in alcoholics and addicts with an occurrence rate of virtually 100%. This is why alcoholics have temper and anger issues. Drinking and using, at least initially, is sort of a bid to help regulate emotional feelings that are left over from past trauma. Taking on a fundamentalist belief system may just be another bid for Affect Regulation. Instead of a substance, they take on an extreme ideology that allows them control of everything in their lives, and will never again leave them powerless. This is why everything is black and white. They have to right, and you have to be wrong (if you disagree).

It would be interesting to see a study performed to find out what percentage of the fundamentalist population also has co existing psychiatric anxiety and personality disorders. We know that these, in particular, are strongly associated with trauma survival. If what I am saying holds true, it would be reasonable to expect a much higher rate of occurrence. Then again, these people might be less likely to ever seek psychiatric help. My own experiences with these people sort of tell me that occurrences of these types of disorders probably IS much higher, but actual research would need to be done. Symptoms like paranoia, narcissism, and reclusive ness do indeed SEEM to be much higher here. The relationship between these disorders and trauma survival has been well documented and established.

fundamentalists exhibit certain characteristics, and a person exhibits these characteristics if he's been traumatised; thus, fundamentalists are victims of past trauma, and do not believe of their own free will.

I think it would be more appropriate to say that the past trauma sort of "wires" them to go this way, just as OCD'ers are "wired" to compulsively perform rituals, or sexual abuse survivors are sort of "wired" to find abusers as partners, or alcoholics are sort of "wired" to find another alcoholic, or a codependent who is from an alcoholic family system. I think free will exists as far as the person has the option of seeking help, but, in terms of behaviors, people generally repeat whatever they were exposed to as children and have no clue as to why they're doing it, or even that they ARE doing it.

I believe there is a strong reason why fundamentalist churches attract the type of people they generally do. These people were ill equipped from the start and find immense safety in this environment. Not only is it safe, but also they function around people who are just like them, and it reinforces their general system. When they go into real life, they discover that they can't handle reality on reality's terms. They never could, except in their sick family systems. The church is just an extension of this, reinforces their sick pathologies, and sort tells them they never have to confront their past. It's much safer to stay there. However, when they do venture out into reality, through political activities, demonstrations, debates, etc., they are seen as they really are. They are childlike, less emotionally developed, angry, emotional, fantasy prone and cannot tolerate anything other than their system. This is sick, predictable, and, if not trauma survival, mimics it.

[Superman]

Ah, forgot your other statement...

I've discussed in some length before the similarities between the fundamentalist mindset and the child's mindset, but at the core of the fundamentalist's position is his choice to be this way: it's known as being born again. I've run across fundies who were surprised I have been a Christian since I was young; they honestly believe one must make a conscious, "informed" choice to believe; and after the choice, belief becomes habit, just as carrying a blanket becomes a toddler's habit.

I would agree there is some truth here, medical and psychological models generally stress one's behaviors, not justifications, when assessment or diagnoses takes place. As humans, we always want to rationalize everything, and this "born again" business would be what I would say is a rationalization of the fact that they are doing it. An OCD'er tries to rationalize why he has to check to see if he really locked his door on the way out of the house 50 times, but it's the behavior that shows him to be sick. An alcoholic may firmly believe he needs to get smashed at night to relieve his stress, but his behaviors are demonstrating what is really going on.

That being said, habitualization cannot be discounted. I agree that is probably plays at least some part in this.

I think, in the case of the OP, the child's bad habits are a direct result of a sudden lack of structure in his life, rather than maladjustment because of abuse. While no social life certainly would play its role (I'm not defending the mother or her homeschooling), the child has abruptly made the transition from an omnipresent mother directing every aspect of his life to the relative freedom of school. He is now free to explore areas which have been forbidden him forever. That freedom, combined with his previous lack of social experience, contributed to his keeping bad company.

Probably a big part of the picture, yes. However, people gravitate towards familiarity. People who are trauma survivors are very good at finding others just like them. A wife beater doesn't seem to have a problem finding a woman who was beaten as a child, and thus tolerates it in a marriage, the alcoholic and/or addict has no problem finding another alcoholic/addict or someone who came from this type of family system.

That being said, one would probably have to get a look at this kid as an adult to get the picture. While there's no doubt that kids put up with the brunt of misery in sick families, I think you can't really get a grasp of what's going on until you can see the life decisions he is making. Being a child, he can't fully function as an individual yet.

[Surlethe]

belief is a fundamentalist's emotional security, much like a toddler's security blanket. I've discussed in some length before the similarities between the fundamentalist mindset and the child's mindset

We're definitely in agreement on this one. Being a trauma survivor also means that these people are sort of hyper vigilant against situations that leave them with feelings of powerlessness.

How do you reconcile this supposed vigilance against powerlessness with the fundamentalist credo of letting go of everything and letting God handle it? To become born again and surrender everything to God is the very essence of powerlessness.

This is why alcoholics, or adult children of alcoholics, for example, often compulsively perform rituals such as having to put 8 coats of a paint on their house (when one or two is what a rational person would do), buy 20 + packages of white t shirts at the store (when one package would have sufficed), write out lists of the days activities and become extremely anxious if any unanticipated deviation arises, etc. They often become compulsive perfectionists and develop anxiety and personality disorders like OCD.

I would associate this type of primitive survival mechanism with the fundamentalist's belief system, your "security blanket."

You hit the nail on the head with "primitive". Remember, religion is as old as mankind, and it is a survival mechanism: religion justifies claims to resources, permits wars, provides reasons for giving up one's life for a higher cause (such as the good of the tribe), and explains natural phenomena so mankind doesn't have to do it.

Not only is it sort of an all-encompassing method of control, but it also allows them to stay in a childlike state, complete with a parent (God) with whom they know will never harm them the way their own parent did.

I think you're overgeneralizing in assuming all fundies were abused as children.

I'm sure you have seen how fundamentalists' react when sort of cornered, through debate for example, and realize that the possibility exists that they might be wrong. They often become very emotional. I've seen a grown man cry, and a girl (in her twenties, I think) become so full of rage that she looked like she wanted to kill me. Even if I am totally wrong about fundamentalism being a manifestation of trauma survival, this alone leads me to think that something pretty deep is happening.

Of course; for a fundamentalist, the decision to believe in God carries lots of weight.

The inability to regulate duration and magnitude of one's own emotions has been summed up and labeled, "Deficiencies of Affect Regulation," and, once again, this has been shown to exist in alcoholics and addicts with an occurrence rate of virtually 100%. This is why alcoholics have temper and anger issues. Drinking and using, at least initially, is sort of a bid to help regulate emotional feelings that are left over from past trauma. Taking on a fundamentalist belief system may just be another bid for Affect Regulation.

However, this isn't support for religion being an addiction; it's affirming the consequent again. The connections between religion and addiction are quite intriguing, and I'd love to see a study done on it, but again, the fact they share some of the same characteristics does not mean fundamentalism is a type of addiction.

Instead of a substance, they take on an extreme ideology that allows them control of everything in their lives, and will never again leave them powerless. This is why everything is black and white. They have to right, and you have to be wrong (if you disagree).

But one of the core tenets of fundamentalism is powerlessness: surrendering everything to God. "Do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself"; Jesus admonishing the disciples to be as little children; Jesus calling God "Father"; these are not examples of fundamentalism empowering its adherents.

It would be interesting to see a study performed to find out what percentage of the fundamentalist population also has co existing psychiatric anxiety and personality disorders. We know that these, in particular, are strongly associated with trauma survival. If what I am saying holds true, it would be reasonable to expect a much higher rate of occurrence. Then again, these people might be less likely to ever seek psychiatric help. My own experiences with these people sort of tell me that occurrences of these types of disorders probably IS much higher, but actual research would need to be done. Symptoms like paranoia, narcissism, and reclusive ness do indeed SEEM to be much higher here. The relationship between these disorders and trauma survival has been well documented and established.

I would also dearly love to see a study regarding the incidence of childhood truama among fundamentalists. The points you're bringing up are intriguing, even if the core of your argument is flawed.

fundamentalists exhibit certain characteristics, and a person exhibits these characteristics if he's been traumatised; thus, fundamentalists are victims of past trauma, and do not believe of their own free will.

I think it would be more appropriate to say that the past trauma sort of "wires" them to go this way, just as OCD'ers are "wired" to compulsively perform rituals, or sexual abuse survivors are sort of "wired" to find abusers as partners, or alcoholics are sort of "wired" to find another alcoholic, or a codependent who is from an alcoholic family system. I think free will exists as far as the person has the option of seeking help, but, in terms of behaviors, people generally repeat whatever they were exposed to as children and have no clue as to why they're doing it, or even that they ARE doing it.

It doesn't matter; the point was, your argument is flawed. Whether or not it wires them to believe in a certain manner, the mere existence of correlated traits does not mean fundamentalism is an addiction.

I believe there is a strong reason why fundamentalist churches attract the type of people they generally do. These people were ill equipped from the start and find immense safety in this environment. Not only is it safe, but also they function around people who are just like them, and it reinforces their general system. When they go into real life, they discover that they can't handle reality on reality's terms. They never could, except in their sick family systems. The church is just an extension of this, reinforces their sick pathologies, and sort tells them they never have to confront their past. It's much safer to stay there. However, when they do venture out into reality, through political activities, demonstrations, debates, etc., they are seen as they really are. They are childlike, less emotionally developed, angry, emotional, fantasy prone and cannot tolerate anything other than their system. This is sick, predictable, and, if not trauma survival, mimics it.

It does mimic it, and I think I see why. While some may be trauma survivors (and, indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if, given the lack of emphasis on critical thought, if the incidence of trauma is higher in fundamentalism than the general population), the sociopathy trauma victims exhibit is, as you've pointed out, a result of the dysfunctional childhood and consequent lack of learning to function in society.

Consider fundamentalism from an evolutionary point of view: as a religion, it vies with other religions for the hearts and minds of people. Now, people who embrace fundamentalism will be less likely to leave fundamentalism if they associate with members of other religions, or possess the ability to think critically regarding their own religion. Hence, the strains of fundamentalism which survive the best will be precisely those which actively discourage association with people who are not fundamentalist, and which suppress critical thought.

Similarly, the desire not to assume responsibility, emotional and intellectual, is deep-seated in all humans; I suspect it's something none of us really outgrow. A religion which appeals to emotions will certainly survive better than a religion which appeals to the intellect (since a religion which appeals to the intellect will eventually be discarded); if a religion appeals to emotions, a strong one will appeal strongly to emotions, and thus will elicit a much more emotional response upon challenge.

So fundamentalism possesses characteristics of trauma victims because, as a religion, it is better adapted to survive and grow if its members express baseline sociopathy. Remember, though, fundamentalists, at face-value, are hardworking, productive members of society; they seem reasonable, until challenged on their beliefs. This aids in proselytizing, and they actively peddle their beliefs: not something commonly found in trauma victims, I'd think.

[Surlethe]

Ah, forgot your other statement...

I've discussed in some length before the similarities between the fundamentalist mindset and the child's mindset, but at the core of the fundamentalist's position is his choice to be this way: it's known as being born again. I've run across fundies who were surprised I have been a Christian since I was young; they honestly believe one must make a conscious, "informed" choice to believe; and after the choice, belief becomes habit, just as carrying a blanket becomes a toddler's habit.

I would agree there is some truth here, medical and psychological models generally stress one's behaviors, not justifications, when assessment or diagnoses takes place. As humans, we always want to rationalize everything, and this "born again" business would be what I would say is a rationalization of the fact that they are doing it. An OCD'er tries to rationalize why he has to check to see if he really locked his door on the way out of the house 50 times, but it's the behavior that shows him to be sick. An alcoholic may firmly believe he needs to get smashed at night to relieve his stress, but his behaviors are demonstrating what is really going on.

That being said, habitualization cannot be discounted. I agree that is probably plays at least some part in this.

But the born again business isn't a rationalization; it's not something they slap onto their beliefs to say, "This is why I believe". It is, instead, considered as the watershed moment in their lives: the moment when they make the emotional, tearful commitment to Christ. In fact, the Christian literature regards living a "Christian life" as a constant choice after being born again -- think of Pilgrim's Progress, and the straight and narrow path.

I think, in the case of the OP, the child's bad habits are a direct result of a sudden lack of structure in his life, rather than maladjustment because of abuse. While no social life certainly would play its role (I'm not defending the mother or her homeschooling), the child has abruptly made the transition from an omnipresent mother directing every aspect of his life to the relative freedom of school. He is now free to explore areas which have been forbidden him forever. That freedom, combined with his previous lack of social experience, contributed to his keeping bad company.

Probably a big part of the picture, yes. However, people gravitate towards familiarity. People who are trauma survivors are very good at finding others just like them. A wife beater doesn't seem to have a problem finding a woman who was beaten as a child, and thus tolerates it in a marriage, the alcoholic and/or addict has no problem finding another alcoholic/addict or someone who came from this type of family system.

I'd like to see some statistics on this. I've always gravitated towards people who are unlike me, and I think a rebellious teenager would actively try to escape those he perceives as similar to his parents.

That being said, one would probably have to get a look at this kid as an adult to get the picture. While there's no doubt that kids put up with the brunt of misery in sick families, I think you can't really get a grasp of what's going on until you can see the life decisions he is making. Being a child, he can't fully function as an individual yet.

This is true; we are, thus, in need of more data. I'm interested in how many fundies were raised fundie, went wild when they lived on their own, couldn't handle the freedom, and were born again in their 20s or 30s.

[Superman]

How do you reconcile this supposed vigilance against powerlessness with the fundamentalist credo of letting go of everything and letting God handle it? To become born again and surrender everything to God is the very essence of powerlessness.

In fundamentalist churches, I frankly see no powerlessness at all. They might get in their knees, put their arms out and look at the ceiling during worship, but when they go home, they want certain things never to be on their televisions, certain movies never to be shown, certain words never to be said, certain subjects never to be taught in school, etc. They are the personification of narcissism. It's all about "MY salvation," it's about "MY going to heaven," it's about "Jesus in MY heart," and they will look down on you and discriminate against you if you don't agree. They are in TOTAL control and TOTAL domination. Again, they cannot ever be powerless in this type of system.

You hit the nail on the head with "primitive". Remember, religion is as old as mankind, and it is a survival mechanism: religion justifies claims to resources, permits wars, provides reasons for giving up one's life for a higher cause (such as the good of the tribe), and explains natural phenomena so mankind doesn't have to do it.

Agreed. However, I am speaking about the more fundamentalist variety of religion and not ALL religions. But religion, in general, does become engrained with culture, and what you said is pretty true.

I think you're overgeneralizing in assuming all fundies were abused as children.

Specifically, my meaning is that they were either abused or neglected as children. Perhaps not the entire population was, but I would argue that vast majority probably is. If the fundamentalist family system is sort of another expression of the dysfunctions that tend to lead into narcissistic family systems, alcoholic family systems, etc., then just trying to grow up and negotiate oneself in this system is traumatizing. If these families are not, generally traumatic, why do these people tend to be more supportive of things like spanking (if you don't agree with me on this particular one, let's just leave it alone and we can get into it later), home schooling, general mistrust of others (except fellow fundies), censorship, and bigotry? These types of behaviors have been shown to be associated with trauma survival, and my opinion is that we are seeing the same thing here. I don't know what the numbers are, but my experience (which I fully admit, is just that) is that fundamentalists actively encourage all of these unhealthy types of behaviors.

I'll give you a reference in a sec to a really interesting study that goes into depth about how right brain activities (which allow further development of the orbiofrontal region of the brain) develop and regulate as a result of mutual exchange with primary caregivers as children. It demonstrates how these systems develop as the result of mutual exchanges with parents or caregivers. Rupture this process, and the child turns inward and relies on more primitive mechanisms, which are lower and much less developed. The child sort of internalizes the realization that the caregivers (which are essential in any social species), with whom the child loves most, does not see him or her as separate being, but rather something to be exploited.

This type of relationship interferes with emotional growth. The child no longer looks to the caregiver for validation of his or her feelings, instead turning inward. This is where more primitive means of affect regulation enter the picture.

Of course; for a fundamentalist, the decision to believe in God carries lots of weight.

Code: Select all

True, but why do they tend to break down emotionally?  In my opinion, debating them into a corner is sort of like breaking down their control mechanism.  They lose it and they become powerless again.  


[quote]However, this isn't support for religion being an addiction; it's affirming the consequent again. The connections between religion and addiction are quite intriguing, and I'd love to see a study done on it, but again, the fact they share some of the same characteristics does not mean fundamentalism is a type of addiction. [/quote]

I'm not necessarily saying that fundamentalism, in itself, is an addiction.  What I am saying, is that the sort of make up for addiction may also manifest itself as becoming a fundamentalist Christian.  That's why they are extremely similar, and that's why many people seem to be able make the transition from an addict or alcoholic to a fundamentalist Christian with little difficulty.  It's an expression of the same type of behaviors associated with trauma survival.  


[quote]But one of the core tenets of fundamentalism is powerlessness: surrendering everything to God. "Do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself"; Jesus admonishing the disciples to be as little children; Jesus calling God "Father"; these are not examples of fundamentalism empowering its adherents.
[/quote]

All I can say about that is, again, I see no powerlessness in fundamentalist Christianity.  I see just the opposite.  Another thing I don't see is the fundamentalist following the words Jesus spoke.  Jesus said a rich man going to heaven is like a camel going through the eye of the needle, yet most fundamentalists tend to be pro business Republicans that pursue money and power like there's no tomorrow.  Jesus also healed people, and expressed love for all, but suggest something like socialized medicine and you quickly find that the average fundie won't tolerate the idea of his tax dollars helping other people with their medical problems.  



[quote]I would also dearly love to see a study regarding the incidence of childhood trauma among fundamentalists. The points you're bringing up are intriguing, even if the core of your argument is flawed. [/quote]

I would too.  The relationship exists families of other trauma related systems, and I think we see the same thing in fundamentalist families.  I'll look around a bit and see if I can find something related to any of this.  This would be a difficult study to conduct though, fundies don't trust others, especially college/research types, and I'm sure they don't often seek help for their problems.  

Another interesting thing about people in general is that they are really the last to see what's right in front of their faces.  One buddy I now have, a recovering alcoholic/addict who has only one hand due to making a bomb and blowing the other one off, has some pretty severe issues (and not just from the bomb).  At his meetings, he sits at the back of the room with his back to the wall, because he's afraid that someone might sit behind him.  He is extremely OCD, agoraphobic (although the meetings are helping him to get over that), and has many other disorders.  When he's talked to me, he is totally convinced he had a normal childhood.  He admits there might have been some hitting, but, in his words, "it wasn't that bad."  When he described some of the things that happened, I had to clinch my teeth to keep my jaw from dropping to the floor.  He has no point of reference, so he truly doesn't know how his family was different from a healthier one.


[quote]It does mimic it, and I think I see why. While some may be trauma survivors (and, indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if, given the lack of emphasis on critical thought, if the incidence of trauma is higher in fundamentalism than the general population), the sociopathy trauma victims exhibit is, as you've pointed out, a result of the dysfunctional childhood and consequent lack of learning to function in society.[/quote]

Not so much of a consequence of learning to function in society.  It's more that this person never learned to form healthy relationships.  People can function in society and still have lingering effects of trauma.  They form interpersonal relationships with others like them, and, please excuse the pun, become pains in the asses for everyone else.  They have a harder time with life, have lots of feelings they don't understand, and may end up with a big plate full of psychiatric disorders, but many have become masters at secrecy.  There are lots of "functioning" alcoholics, abusers who are never reported, narcissists who tell their children that their pain is all in their head and to shut up about it, etc., but many can function in society. 

[quote]Consider fundamentalism from an evolutionary point of view: as a religion, it vies with other religions for the hearts and minds of people. Now, people who embrace fundamentalism will be less likely to leave fundamentalism if they associate with members of other religions, or possess the ability to think critically regarding their own religion. Hence, the strains of fundamentalism which survive the best will be precisely those which actively discourage association with people who are not fundamentalist, and which suppress critical thought.
  
Similarly, the desire not to assume responsibility, emotional and intellectual, is deep-seated in all humans; I suspect it's something none of us really outgrow. A religion which appeals to emotions will certainly survive better than a religion which appeals to the intellect (since a religion which appeals to the intellect will eventually be discarded); if a religion appeals to emotions, a strong one will appeal strongly to emotions, and thus will elicit a much more emotional response upon challenge.[/quote]

I am not certain that there exists a deep-seated desire to stay sort of ignorant and stupid.  We, as a species, seem to have a need to explore, to build bigger and better things, to go to the moon, to sail the seas, to do things others have never done.  I think that's the essence of our species.  If we wanted to stay lazy and stupid, then how did a bunch of primates end up to where we are now?

[quote]So fundamentalism possesses characteristics of trauma victims because, as a religion, it is better adapted to survive and grow if its members express baseline sociopathy. Remember, though, fundamentalists, at face-value, are hardworking, productive members of society; they seem reasonable, until challenged on their beliefs. This aids in proselytizing, and they actively peddle their beliefs: not something commonly found in trauma victims, I'd think.[/quote]

I would point out that many, if not most, trauma survivors can and do function in society.  

[quote]But the born again business isn't a rationalization; it's not something they slap onto their beliefs to say, "This is why I believe". It is, instead, considered as the watershed moment in their lives: the moment when they make the emotional, tearful commitment to Christ. In fact, the Christian literature regards living a "Christian life" as a constant choice after being born again -- think of Pilgrim's Progress, and the straight and narrow path.[/quote]

Agreed.  Again, I would attribute this to acting out their more primitive means of Affect Regulation.  I am most certainly convinced that they believe that they are in fact "constantly choosing" to live a Christian life.  That's how they rationalize it.

[quote]I'd like to see some statistics on this. I've always gravitated towards people who are unlike me, and I think a rebellious teenager would actively try to escape those he perceives as similar to his parents.[/quote][/quote]

I will post a few in a sec.  A rebellious teenager would love to do that, I'm sure, but another phenomenon is how humans have this innate drive and ability to sort of recreate the traumas of their pasts.  This is why girls who were molested often become sexual compulsives, or boys who see their fathers beat their mothers tend to become abusers themselves.  [url=http://216.109.125.130/search/cache?p=repeat+cycle+of+trauma&sm=Yahoo%21+Search&fr=FP-tab-web-t&toggle=1&cop=&ei=UTF-8&u=www.myhealthwellmark.com/topic/depabuse2&w=repeat+cycle+trauma&d=NHL_tm1aMPJ_&icp=1&.intl=us]Here[/url] is a little information on this.  I can't recall the name of this off of the top of my head, but it is in the DSM 5.  I'll find it.  

Anyway, not only that, but they have an uncanny ability to find one another.  When I work someone who is an alcoholic and interview them, they their spouse or partner is either an addict/alcoholic themselves, or they are the product of this family system and become extremely co dependent.  

Give me a few and I'll post some references you can check out.

[Superman]

An excellent article and study on trauma survival and children from the American Psychiatric Association. Talks about repetitive behaviors that go along with it.

[http://focus.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/c ... ll/1/3/322]Here[/url]

Great article about how trauma survivors typically are compulsed to repeat the trauma as adults. Lots of information here.

[http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/vanderkolk/]Here[/url]

I need bed. I'll dig up some more information tomorrow.

[Superman]

But the born again business isn't a rationalization; it's not something they slap onto their beliefs to say, "This is why I believe". It is, instead, considered as the watershed moment in their lives: the moment when they make the emotional, tearful commitment to Christ. In fact, the Christian literature regards living a "Christian life" as a constant choice after being born again -- think of Pilgrim's Progress, and the straight and narrow path.

Errr... when you stated this one, I mean't that I don't agree. Sorry, fading out here. What I wrote for the rest of the response is what I meant.

Anyway, I am stating that they are acting out a compulsion, which is their defense mechanism. They think they're doing it for the reasons you stated, however, like the sexual compulsive girl who may come up with all sort of reasons why she's like this (I'm just a slut, etc.), the reality is the acting out of a compulsion associated with trauma survival (sexual molestation, abandoning father, etc.). These are behavioral drives which originate in the Hypothalamus of the brain; these also include sexual orientation (Sex hormones at puberty, etc.), hunger, reward system, etc. An addict, for example, experiences drives to use and drink because this part of the brain has sort of been rewired and literally hijacked. They don't know why. They try to explain it, and fully believe their explanations, but it's happening on a very primitive level. I believe that fundamentalist Christianity is another expression of the acting out of a trauma survival compulsion, or compulsions, associated with this repetitive behavioral syndrome, which is ultimately a sort of defensive mechanism associated with trauma.

In medical settings, especially in psychiatry, physicians generally put little weight on what the patient has to say in regards to explanations of his behaviors. He might think he can explain why he talks to himself, why he performs certain rituals, why he will get hyper and stay up for days on end, but the reality is that the behaviors expose the truth. Since his problem is originating from his brain, and he can't exactly step out of his head and get the bigger picture, a clinician must take a hard look from the outside. This is a very general truth in terms of behavioral science and medicine. People generally do not get the bigger picture of what's going on, in terms of their behavior, so they need something outside of themselves.

[Surlethe]

How do you reconcile this supposed vigilance against powerlessness with the fundamentalist credo of letting go of everything and letting God handle it? To become born again and surrender everything to God is the very essence of powerlessness.

In fundamentalist churches, I frankly see no powerlessness at all. They might get in their knees, put their arms out and look at the ceiling during worship, but when they go home, they want certain things never to be on their televisions, certain movies never to be shown, certain words never to be said, certain subjects never to be taught in school, etc. They are the personification of narcissism. It's all about "MY salvation," it's about "MY going to heaven," it's about "Jesus in MY heart," and they will look down on you and discriminate against you if you don't agree. They are in TOTAL control and TOTAL domination. Again, they cannot ever be powerless in this type of system.

Why do they want "total control" and "total domination" of others? Because they are convinced of their own powerlessness in the face of temptation. Remember, the key tenet of Christianity is the utter depravity of mankind; they rely on the emotional crutch of Christ to help them, because they are completely powerless.

You hit the nail on the head with "primitive". Remember, religion is as old as mankind, and it is a survival mechanism: religion justifies claims to resources, permits wars, provides reasons for giving up one's life for a higher cause (such as the good of the tribe), and explains natural phenomena so mankind doesn't have to do it.

Agreed. However, I am speaking about the more fundamentalist variety of religion and not ALL religions. But religion, in general, does become engrained with culture, and what you said is pretty true.

I think you're overgeneralizing in assuming all fundies were abused as children.

Specifically, my meaning is that they were either abused or neglected as children. Perhaps not the entire population was, but I would argue that vast majority probably is. If the fundamentalist family system is sort of another expression of the dysfunctions that tend to lead into narcissistic family systems, alcoholic family systems, etc., then just trying to grow up and negotiate oneself in this system is traumatizing. If these families are not, generally traumatic, why do these people tend to be more supportive of things like spanking (if you don't agree with me on this particular one, let's just leave it alone and we can get into it later), home schooling, general mistrust of others (except fellow fundies), censorship, and bigotry? These types of behaviors have been shown to be associated with trauma survival, and my opinion is that we are seeing the same thing here. I don't know what the numbers are, but my experience (which I fully admit, is just that) is that fundamentalists actively encourage all of these unhealthy types of behaviors.

While they're associated with trauma survival, that doesn't mean fundamentalism is necessarily a result of trauma.

Of course; for a fundamentalist, the decision to believe in God carries lots of weight.

True, but why do they tend to break down emotionally? In my opinion, debating them into a corner is sort of like breaking down their control mechanism. They lose it and they become powerless again.

Because they have emotionally invested a whole lot of time and energy into their relationship with God. If I debated you into a corner on your relatioship with your wife, you would probably get emotional, too, because you've invested a lot of time in your relationship; it's the same reason parents get emotional about their kids, and will be irrational (threatening and even executing stupid lawsuits, for example; see the California Exit Exam thread in N&P).

However, this isn't support for religion being an addiction; it's affirming the consequent again. The connections between religion and addiction are quite intriguing, and I'd love to see a study done on it, but again, the fact they share some of the same characteristics does not mean fundamentalism is a type of addiction.

I'm not necessarily saying that fundamentalism, in itself, is an addiction. What I am saying, is that the sort of make up for addiction may also manifest itself as becoming a fundamentalist Christian. That's why they are extremely similar, and that's why many people seem to be able make the transition from an addict or alcoholic to a fundamentalist Christian with little difficulty. It's an expression of the same type of behaviors associated with trauma survival.

I reiterate: while it's an expression of the same kind of behaviors, that doesn't mean fundamentalism is necessarily an expression of trauma, and it doesn't follow that fundamentalism is a wired response to trauma.

But one of the core tenets of fundamentalism is powerlessness: surrendering everything to God. "Do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself"; Jesus admonishing the disciples to be as little children; Jesus calling God "Father"; these are not examples of fundamentalism empowering its adherents.

All I can say about that is, again, I see no powerlessness in fundamentalist Christianity. I see just the opposite. Another thing I don't see is the fundamentalist following the words Jesus spoke. Jesus said a rich man going to heaven is like a camel going through the eye of the needle, yet most fundamentalists tend to be pro business Republicans that pursue money and power like there's no tomorrow. Jesus also healed people, and expressed love for all, but suggest something like socialized medicine and you quickly find that the average fundie won't tolerate the idea of his tax dollars helping other people with their medical problems.

Jesus preached love, but he also preached hate; see the proclamations regarding Tyre and Sidon, for example. Furthermore, for fundies, the Old Testament is still entirely valid. This isn't the place to reiterate how fundies rationalize the contradictions in their beliefs, but the fact their behavior contradicts their beliefs is evidence they feel they are powerless to overcome temptation: if they could overcome temptation on their own, then they would, so they have to rely on God; but because humans are depraved, they can't rely fully on God, and so fail, and have to be saved.

I would also dearly love to see a study regarding the incidence of childhood trauma among fundamentalists. The points you're bringing up are intriguing, even if the core of your argument is flawed.

I would too. The relationship exists families of other trauma related systems, and I think we see the same thing in fundamentalist families. I'll look around a bit and see if I can find something related to any of this. This would be a difficult study to conduct though, fundies don't trust others, especially college/research types, and I'm sure they don't often seek help for their problems.

It does mimic it, and I think I see why. While some may be trauma survivors (and, indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if, given the lack of emphasis on critical thought, if the incidence of trauma is higher in fundamentalism than the general population), the sociopathy trauma victims exhibit is, as you've pointed out, a result of the dysfunctional childhood and consequent lack of learning to function in society.

Not so much of a consequence of learning to function in society. It's more that this person never learned to form healthy relationships. People can function in society and still have lingering effects of trauma. They form interpersonal relationships with others like them, and, please excuse the pun, become pains in the asses for everyone else. They have a harder time with life, have lots of feelings they don't understand, and may end up with a big plate full of psychiatric disorders, but many have become masters at secrecy. There are lots of "functioning" alcoholics, abusers who are never reported, narcissists who tell their children that their pain is all in their head and to shut up about it, etc., but many can function in society.

Okay, the consequent lack of learning about healthy relationships. My point still stands: fundamentalism exhibits the characteristics of trauma because, as a belief, those characteristics help it to survive.

Consider fundamentalism from an evolutionary point of view: as a religion, it vies with other religions for the hearts and minds of people. Now, people who embrace fundamentalism will be less likely to leave fundamentalism if they associate with members of other religions, or possess the ability to think critically regarding their own religion. Hence, the strains of fundamentalism which survive the best will be precisely those which actively discourage association with people who are not fundamentalist, and which suppress critical thought.

Similarly, the desire not to assume responsibility, emotional and intellectual, is deep-seated in all humans; I suspect it's something none of us really outgrow. A religion which appeals to emotions will certainly survive better than a religion which appeals to the intellect (since a religion which appeals to the intellect will eventually be discarded); if a religion appeals to emotions, a strong one will appeal strongly to emotions, and thus will elicit a much more emotional response upon challenge.

I am not certain that there exists a deep-seated desire to stay sort of ignorant and stupid. We, as a species, seem to have a need to explore, to build bigger and better things, to go to the moon, to sail the seas, to do things others have never done. I think that's the essence of our species. If we wanted to stay lazy and stupid, then how did a bunch of primates end up to where we are now?

The drive to explore conflicts with the drive to be lazy. Which is more characteristic of Americans: sitting at home on their lazy asses watching TV, or calculating complex physical descriptions of subatomic collisions? Which would you rather do? If we have a drive to explore which dominates our laziness, then why is America so fat?

So fundamentalism possesses characteristics of trauma victims because, as a religion, it is better adapted to survive and grow if its members express baseline sociopathy. Remember, though, fundamentalists, at face-value, are hardworking, productive members of society; they seem reasonable, until challenged on their beliefs. This aids in proselytizing, and they actively peddle their beliefs: not something commonly found in trauma victims, I'd think.

I would point out that many, if not most, trauma survivors can and do function in society.

I'm not contradicting this; I'm merely saying the expression of sociopathy can't be too strong, or else they wouldn't be able to function very well in society.

But the born again business isn't a rationalization; it's not something they slap onto their beliefs to say, "This is why I believe". It is, instead, considered as the watershed moment in their lives: the moment when they make the emotional, tearful commitment to Christ. In fact, the Christian literature regards living a "Christian life" as a constant choice after being born again -- think of Pilgrim's Progress, and the straight and narrow path.

Errr... when you stated this one, I mean't that I don't agree. Sorry, fading out here. What I wrote for the rest of the response is what I meant.

It's no problem.

I believe that fundamentalist Christianity is another expression of the acting out of a trauma survival compulsion, or compulsions, associated with this repetitive behavioral syndrome, which is ultimately a sort of defensive mechanism associated with trauma.

But without evidence for trauma in fundies, this belief doesn't fly; as I've said, it is the fallacy of affirming the consequent to suppose that because fundamentalist Christians exhibit symptoms of trauma, they must have been traumatized, especially when alternative explanations exist.

Put alternatively, how would you propose to disprove your contention that fundamentalism is not a choice because it is a coping mechanism for trauma survival?

In medical settings, especially in psychiatry, physicians generally put little weight on what the patient has to say in regards to explanations of his behaviors. He might think he can explain why he talks to himself, why he performs certain rituals, why he will get hyper and stay up for days on end, but the reality is that the behaviors expose the truth. Since his problem is originating from his brain, and he can't exactly step out of his head and get the bigger picture, a clinician must take a hard look from the outside. This is a very general truth in terms of behavioral science and medicine. People generally do not get the bigger picture of what's going on, in terms of their behavior, so they need something outside of themselves.

Then the real test is, can a fundamentalist stop believing of his own free will, without therapy exposing and dealing with past trauma? This would imply the behavior is a choice, and, in turn, not a result of wiring because of trauma.

[Superman]

Why do they want "total control" and "total domination" of others? Because they are convinced of their own powerlessness in the face of temptation. Remember, the key tenet of Christianity is the utter depravity of mankind; they rely on the emotional crutch of Christ to help them, because they are completely powerless.

From the model that I am looking to, they need this total control for the same reasons any other trauma survivor does. They are hyper vigilant against any situation that leaves them feeling powerless again. They don't "want" total control, they are compulsed to find it.

While I am not much of a fan of Christianity, I don't believe that the fundamentalist variety practices much in terms of some of the key tenants of the religion. For example, how many of them lie on a regular basis? The ones that write to D Wong on this board do it almost all the time. How many of them claim to have advanced degrees, yet cannot put together a simple sentence? I do agree with you that Christianity, like any religion, does rely on the depravity of mankind; and it shows by most of the sages that have lived saying to rid yourself of your worldly possessions, forgive, "do unto others," the general message to the effect of "the least among you is the greatest," etc. Religion seems to have one key element, no matter what form it takes, and that is to put the self aside and make yourself humble. Fundamentalist Christianity is just the opposite, it's more like put the self first and be arrogant about it. I don't think that the issue lies in the religion, or expression thereof. The question is why does fundamentalist Christianity attract the people that it attracts? You and I could never be converted into fundies because the makings for that probably don't exist in us.

Because they have emotionally invested a whole lot of time and energy into their relationship with God. If I debated you into a corner on your relatioship with your wife, you would probably get emotional, too, because you've invested a lot of time in your relationship; it's the same reason parents get emotional about their kids, and will be irrational (threatening and even executing stupid lawsuits, for example; see the California Exit Exam thread in N&P).

I might get emotional, to an extent if you said, for example, "you and you're wife don't really love each other." But I think the situation would be a little different if I said to you something like, "my wife and I love each other, and that's because pink flying monkeys come into the room when we make love and throw fecal matter all over the place." Let's say that I was angry and very aggressive about it. You respond by saying that there are no flying monkeys and proceed to demonstrate why there is no way they could get into our room, be pink, etc. Then I respond by breaking down, and continue to repeat that the monkeys are there. I refuse to be reasoned with, and hold on to the monkey fantasy.

I reiterate: while it's an expression of the same kind of behaviors, that doesn't mean fundamentalism is necessarily an expression of trauma, and it doesn't follow that fundamentalism is a wired response to trauma.

I agree that this relationship has never been established. I am saying my opinion, and giving some reasons as why I think it's happening.

But without evidence for trauma in fundies, this belief doesn't fly; as I've said, it is the fallacy of affirming the consequent to suppose that because fundamentalist Christians exhibit symptoms of trauma, they must have been traumatized, especially when alternative explanations exist.

Put alternatively, how would you propose to disprove your contention that fundamentalism is not a choice because it is a coping mechanism for trauma survival?

To say something of no effect like, "Fundamentalist Christians are not trauma survivors" would be, admittedly, hard to research. I think disproving this theory would be a matter of gathering a sample, looking into their individual histories and finding out more information about their families of origin in terms of trauma (abuse, neglect, what types of psychiatric disorders are present, have been present, etc.) I think having a control group of non-fundies could be used for a comparison of results. My contention is that a relationship could be established that show high incidences of traumas in the fundies' pasts when compared to a sample of the non fundie population. Of course this would not establish any natural laws. It would just demonstrate a correlation, and even that doesn't exclude other things that could be going on. Still, the idea of carrying out this sort of study is pretty intriguing.

Admittedly, this sort of study would be pretty hard to carry out. How many fundies would volunteer for something like this? And, as we have seen even on here, many fundies often lie. It might be hard to get any insight into their pasts from them. It could be similar to how people with NPD (narcissists) are the hardest to treat for clinicians because they tend to constantly lie about their pasts. Even if I am completely wrong about my contention, how would a study set up to show that fundamentalist Christians are, in fact, acting out primitive impulses, not unlike an alcoholic or sexual compulsive, be received by people?

I myself would be more than willing to someday set up this type of study. Perhaps an interview process could also be established to sort of "catch" them if they do lie, and then that could also be documented and included. Maybe there could also be independent means that could be used to gather more history about their pasts? I am not sure, but I think that this sort of study could actually be carried out.

[Qwerty 42]

It's funny how people just accept a Christian saying things like "I need to meet someone" or "I need a playmate for my child" and then adding "and he should be Christian." If someone says that and adds "and he has to be white", everyone says "you're a bigot!" But when it's religion, oh nooooo, we can't criticize.

I do have a question, but it's purely an academic one. In a thread about the recent business with the embassy burnings, you said that religion should not be protected under Hate Speech laws, since it is a choice. However, here you draw a comparison between religious distinction and racial distinction. I was just curious how you draw the distinction.

Also, since religion affects the behavior patterns of the more conservative religious types, wouldn't requesting a Christian playmate be equivalent to requesting a certain personality type? Granted, that would be overly limiting on a child and still bigoted, but not in the same way as discriminating playmates by skin color.

Granted, at that age, religion is largely not a choice, since they tend to parrot their legal guardian's beliefs. Is that how you drew the distinction?

[Kamakazie Sith]

Am I missing some sarcasm here? If belief isn't a choice, then we shouldn't see any deconverted fundamentalists, and Christianity shouldn't have spread in the first place.

Belief is certainly a lot more complicated than a simple choice. No matter how much I try I can't choose to believe in an invisible elephant, but I can choose to turn left versus turn right.

[Darth Wong]

Belief is certainly a lot more complicated than a simple choice. No matter how much I try I can't choose to believe in an invisible elephant, but I can choose to turn left versus turn right.

That's because you've been conditioned to think of the invisible elephant as absurd. Without that conditioning, humans are surprisingly amenable to even the most bizarre beliefs.

You don't need to condition a person to believe in an idea; you only need to condition him to think that this idea is not stupid or laughable. Do that, and it becomes a viable notion in his head, ready to be called into action in moments of despair or misery to make him feel better. But that last step is still a choice.

On some level, there's a certain amount of willing self-delusion going on with Christians, so many of whom speak of talking to God even though they know deep down that they've never really had an explicit conversation with God and that they're sort of "deciding" to interpret emotional feelings or gut instincts as God talking to them. They don't see burning bushes or hear booming voices from on high; they feel positive when they think of something so they think God is telling them "go for it!"

[Superman]

Belief is certainly a lot more complicated than a simple choice. No matter how much I try I can't choose to believe in an invisible elephant, but I can choose to turn left versus turn right.

That's because you've been conditioned to think of the invisible elephant as absurd. Without that conditioning, humans are surprisingly amenable to even the most bizarre beliefs.

You don't need to condition a person to believe in an idea; you only need to condition him to think that this idea is not stupid or laughable. Do that, and it becomes a viable notion in his head, ready to be called into action in moments of despair or misery to make him feel better. But that last step is still a choice.

On some level, there's a certain amount of willing self-delusion going on with Christians, so many of whom speak of talking to God even though they know deep down that they've never really had an explicit conversation with God and that they're sort of "deciding" to interpret emotional feelings or gut instincts as God talking to them. They don't see burning bushes or hear booming voices from on high; they feel positive when they think of something so they think God is telling them "go for it!"

That's true, but you also have certain charismatic types who honestly believe that the circus "miracles" they witness in their churches are proof of this stuff. I have a friend at school that is not very knowledgeable about Christianity, but she once mentioned that she's witnessed “miracles” that prove what she believes. The pastor up front laying on hands crap type of miracles.

I think she watches these sideshow magic acts, and, since she has never been taught reason or healthy skepticism, just accepts this things at face value.

[wolveraptor]

*snip*

That's true; when you press a moderate about his/her faith, you can probably get him/her to boil down to the answer, "I believe because it makes me feel good." Sure, they'll be pissed as all hell at you by this point, but it shows that it is a choice at some level.

[Surlethe]

From the model that I am looking to, they need this total control for the same reasons any other trauma survivor does. They are hyper vigilant against any situation that leaves them feeling powerless again. They don't "want" total control, they are compulsed to find it.

They're hypervigilant against tempation because they already feel powerless, not because they don't want to feel powerless; as I've said, natural human depravity is probably the key point of Christianity: sell that, and you've nearly gotten yoruself a convert.

I might get emotional, to an extent if you said, for example, "you and you're wife don't really love each other." But I think the situation would be a little different if I said to you something like, "my wife and I love each other, and that's because pink flying monkeys come into the room when we make love and throw fecal matter all over the place." Let's say that I was angry and very aggressive about it. You respond by saying that there are no flying monkeys and proceed to demonstrate why there is no way they could get into our room, be pink, etc. Then I respond by breaking down, and continue to repeat that the monkeys are there. I refuse to be reasoned with, and hold on to the monkey fantasy.

Your reaction would be more analogous if I slandered your wife, and then claimed she didn't exist, but the point is the same: because they've invested so much emotion into the relationship with God, they're almost bound to be irrational when challenged.

[Darth RyanKCR]

On some level, there's a certain amount of willing self-delusion going on with Christians, so many of whom speak of talking to God even though they know deep down that they've never really had an explicit conversation with God and that they're sort of "deciding" to interpret emotional feelings or gut instincts as God talking to them. They don't see burning bushes or hear booming voices from on high; they feel positive when they think of something so they think God is telling them "go for it!"

And yet I have talked to God or more accurately Christ. You may dismiss it as a delusion a 7 year old who was frightened at the prospect of haveing heart surgery the next day but how do you explain the effect it had on others around me at the time some of whom were not Christians?

I do not "feel positive" that God spoke to me. I know He did.

[Gil Hamilton]

And yet I have talked to God or more accurately Christ. You may dismiss it as a delusion a 7 year old who was frightened at the prospect of haveing heart surgery the next day but how do you explain the effect it had on others around me at the time some of whom were not Christians?

I do not "feel positive" that God spoke to me. I know He did.

Do you know what a psychosomatic effect is?

[Surlethe]

I do not "feel positive" that God spoke to me. I know He did.

What's the difference?

[wolveraptor]

And yet I have talked to God or more accurately Christ. You may dismiss it as a delusion a 7 year old who was frightened at the prospect of haveing heart surgery the next day but how do you explain the effect it had on others around me at the time some of whom were not Christians?

What was this effect, and how the hell do you know it was caused by god? Why did god speaking to you (privately, I assume) affect other people?

I do not "feel positive" that God spoke to me. I know He did.

What were his exact words? What was the pitch of his voice? Did he speak quickly or slowly? Did he sing? Did he whisper? Did he tell you through interpretive dance? Assuming he actually spoke, you should know all these things.