I agree, and therein lies Einstein's irony. Similar to his expressions about the naivety of belief in a personal god.Einstein also said, “It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."Einstein expressed his skepticism regarding an anthropomorphic deity, often describing it as "naïve" and "childlike".andIn his 1949 book The World as I See It, he wrote: "A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which are only accessible to our reason in their most elementary forms—it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious manhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein#Cosmic_spirituality
Anyway, Einstein described himself as religious. Bend it how you want.
He despised the naive atheism you are exposing here.
Anyway, Einstein described himself as religious. Bend it how you want. He despised the naive atheism you are exposing here.Actually he qualified his statement with "If I am religious" and "my religion of a somewhat different kind." To me it sounds that he was trying hard to draw a distinction between a personal god (sentient being) and the structure of the wholeness of the universe. This is why the "if". And that brings the debate back to the definition of religion.
Some people see religion as Einstein saw it. Some people think the only religion is theirs. There are dozens, maybe hundreds of ways of looking at religion. It’s not up for debate. The very fact of casting it as though it is, is a main reason why these discussions never make any progress.
Kkwan, when you saw two moons, you were not delusional, unless, perhaps, you were convinced that there actually were two moons.Being really drunk, seeing two moons (notwithstanding knowing there is only one moon and I was drunk) is surrealistic. :)
Illusions are sensory misperceptions and/or sensory processing phenomena. Delusions are non-reality based beliefs that tend to be immune to contradictory evidence.What is an illusion? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusion
An illusion is a distortion of the senses, revealing how the brain normally organizes and interprets sensory stimulation. Though illusions distort reality, they are generally shared by most people.What is a delusion? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion
A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary.And: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/delusion
: a belief that is not true : a false idea : a false idea or belief that is caused by mental illnessSo, a false belief or idea held with strong conviction despite contrary evidence can be described as delusional for people with no mental illness. :cheese:
So, a false belief or idea held with strong conviction despite contrary evidence can be described as delusional for people with no mental illness.No, that is mental illness. It may not meet the criteria for a DSM classification but by definition it is a malfunction, or unhealthy functioning, of the mind.
...So, a false belief or idea held with strong conviction despite contrary evidence can be described as delusional for people with no mental illness. :cheese:Indeed. In fact, I consider most religious people to be delusional but not mentally ill. And as Einstein suggested our consciousness pre-disposes all of us to experience the delusion of ourselves as separate from the Universe. But that doesn't mean we are mentally ill.
Actually he qualified his statement with "If I am religious" and "my religion of a somewhat different kind."Yes, but Einstein wrote more about this topic than these few lines. He considered himself religious, more or less in a 'Spinozian way'.
To me it sounds that he was trying hard to draw a distinction between a personal god (sentient being) and the structure of the wholeness of the universe.Do not try put your world view in Einstein's mouth. You are right concerning the personal God: Einstein did not believe in such a God. But specially that 'wholeness of the universe' is a bit too Bohmian to my taste. That time is a kind of illusion that physically must be resolved into space-time is as close to wholeness you can get with Einstein.
Actually he qualified his statement with "If I am religious" and "my religion of a somewhat different kind."Yes, but Einstein wrote more about this topic than these few lines. He considered himself religious, more or less in a 'Spinozian way'. Yes, he said that himself. But it is my opinion that Einstein used the word god only for convenience and usually to deny the existence of a personal god. I believe he spoke of religion in context of an abstraction in philosophical rather than in a spiritual sense as expressed by his declaration of humility and awe while describing the limitations of the human mind to understand but a very small part of it. Practicing the "scientific method" is Physics is not very much different than practicing a "ritual method" in Theism. IMO, this was Einstein's "different kind of religion".
To me it sounds that he was trying hard to draw a distinction between a personal god (sentient being) and the structure of the wholeness of the universe.
Do not try put your world view in Einstein's mouth. You are right concerning the personal God: Einstein did not believe in such a God. But specially that 'wholeness of the universe' is a bit too Bohmian to my taste. That time is a kind of illusion that physically must be resolved into space-time is as close to wholeness you can get with Einstein.I stated it was my opinion. You are right, I am not sure if Einstein ever used that term. Many times he did use the terms "our world" and the "natural world" in his philosophical writings. I personally used Wholeness as a neutral interpretation of his use of those words. I am confident that he was not specifically speaking of the Earth, but more in context of the universe and ultimately a natural singularity (of any size or scope) of which we are all part in every respect. p.s. I don't agree with (or understand) all of Bohm's propositions, but Bohm and Einstein had many discussions on his concept of a dynamic zero state condition and wavelike functions, from which everything springs that is ultimately only partly expressed in our reality. It did not even rule out the existence of separate universes. This was advanced theoretical thinking. From all the letters Bohm send to the many great minds of that day, only Einstein (and one other scientist) responded and they spend considerable time together discussing Bohm's work. IMO, Einstein used "natural world" in the same context as Bohm's "wholeness" (not separateness").
(I misread GdB’s post so I’ve redacted mine.)
Clearly Einstein had some strong feelings about the nature of the Universe as he conceived and experienced it. He also lived in a world in which it was less socially acceptable than now, to be non-religious. I imagine his statements concerning religion were strongly influenced by these two factors.
No, that is mental illness. It may not meet the criteria for a DSM classification but by definition it is a malfunction, or unhealthy functioning, of the mind.Not necessarily so. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/delusion
Full Definition of DELUSION 1: the act of deluding : the state of being deluded 2 a : something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated b : a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary; also : the abnormal state marked by such beliefsExamples of delusion from the same link:
1. He has delusions about how much money he can make at that job. 2. He is living under the delusion that he is incapable of making mistakes. 3. She is under the delusion that we will finish on time. 4. As the illness progressed, his delusions took over and he had violent outbursts.So, sane people can be deluded as well. :cheese:
Indeed. In fact, I consider most religious people to be delusional but not mentally ill. And as Einstein suggested our consciousness pre-disposes all of us to experience the delusion of ourselves as separate from the Universe. But that doesn't mean we are mentally ill.Quite so, wrt what Einstein wrote. Wrt most religious people, I don't know and thus cannot prejudge them as such (notwithstanding my own beliefs) and hopefully, it is reciprocal on their part from their religious perspective wrt irreligious people.
Indeed. In fact, I consider most religious people to be delusional but not mentally ill. And as Einstein suggested our consciousness pre-disposes all of us to experience the delusion of ourselves as separate from the Universe. But that doesn't mean we are mentally ill.Quite so, wrt what Einstein wrote. Wrt most religious people, I don't know and thus cannot prejudge them as such (notwithstanding my own beliefs) and hopefully, it is reciprocal on their part from their religious perspective wrt irreligious people. If one goes by these 3 main characteristics of a delusion (see Wikipedia): certainty (held with absolute conviction) incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary) impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre or patently untrue) then, it seems to me that this applies to much of the dogma that is believed by many religious people. If, OTOH, your definition of delusion requires an element of psychosis, then they are not delusional. And then, neither are all of us who experience our individuality as separate from our Universe. Psychosis indicates a mental illness or at least a short term mental dysfunction.
No, that is mental illness. It may not meet the criteria for a DSM classification but by definition it is a malfunction, or unhealthy functioning, of the mind.Not necessarily so. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/delusion
Full Definition of DELUSION 1: the act of deluding : the state of being deluded 2 a : something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated b : a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary; also : the abnormal state marked by such beliefsExamples of delusion from the same link:
1. He has delusions about how much money he can make at that job. 2. He is living under the delusion that he is incapable of making mistakes. 3. She is under the delusion that we will finish on time. 4. As the illness progressed, his delusions took over and he had violent outbursts.So, sane people can be deluded as well. :cheese: You read my words but you didn't understand them.
If one goes by these 3 main characteristics of a delusion (see Wikipedia): certainty (held with absolute conviction) incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary) impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre or patently untrue) then, it seems to me that this applies to much of the dogma that is believed by many religious people.From the same wiki: Please note the remark before the article proper.
This article is about the psychiatric condition. For the concept in Eastern spirituality, see Delusion (spirituality).Bold added by me. From the definition:
Furthermore, when a false belief involves a value judgment, it is only considered as a delusion if it is so extreme that it cannot be or never can be proven true. For example: a man claiming that he flew into the sun and flew back home. This would be considered a delusion, unless he was speaking figuratively.Most religious people would be aghast if their cherished beliefs are considered delusions as such.
If, OTOH, your definition of delusion requires an element of psychosis, then they are not delusional. And then, neither are all of us who experience our individuality as separate from our Universe. Psychosis indicates a mental illness or at least a short term mental dysfunction.Delusion (in the broadest sense) need not involve a psychiatric condition. I would consider the full definition as comprehensive. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/delusion
Full Definition of DELUSION 1 : the act of deluding : the state of being deluded 2 a : something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated b : a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary; also : the abnormal state marked by such beliefs1 and 2a do not refer to a psychiatric condition, it is wrt a belief that is not true or a false idea.
You read my words but you didn't understand them.What did you mean when you wrote:
....but by definition it is a malfunction, or unhealthy functioning, of the mind.Please explain.
You read my words but you didn't understand them.What did you mean when you wrote:
....but by definition it is a malfunction, or unhealthy functioning, of the mind.Please explain. Sure. That was in reference to your statement: "So, a false belief or idea held with strong conviction despite contrary evidence can be described as delusional for people with no mental illness." We human beings assign things to categories all the time. Usually, the assignment is largely arbitrary. All beliefs and ideas are products of the functioning mind. Some beliefs and ideas reflect healthy functioning; others reflect unhealthy functioning. Delusions fall into the latter category, representing unhealthy functioning by definition. This does not necessarily mean that the delusional person meets the criteria for a DSM category, or has any organic pathology in the brain. But by definition, unhealthy mental functioning is going on. If someone did that with everything - imagining, for example, that his wife was a hat - we wouldn't hesitate to call the person mentally ill, even if we couldn't identify the reason. The very fact that the mind was that dysfunctional would lead us to say that the person was mentally ill, i.e., not mentally well. But there's no qualitative difference between constant dysfunction and occasional dysfunction; the difference is just a matter of degree. The difference is quantitative but regardless of the quantity, the mind is not functioning properly. That's mental illness, whether it has an organic basis or not, and whether it meets the criteria for a DSM classification or not.
If you go by this definition, 1 and 2a are inadequate as definers because they use derivatives of the word "delusion", thus you have to rely on 2b, which includes the modifier "psychotic". Hence by this definition, a delusion is a psychiatric condition.Full Definition of DELUSION 1 : the act of deluding : the state of being deluded 2 a : something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated b : a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary; also : the abnormal state marked by such beliefs1 and 2a do not refer to a psychiatric condition, it is wrt a belief that is not true or a false idea.
Sure. That was in reference to your statement: "So, a false belief or idea held with strong conviction despite contrary evidence can be described as delusional for people with no mental illness." We human beings assign things to categories all the time. Usually, the assignment is largely arbitrary. All beliefs and ideas are products of the functioning mind. Some beliefs and ideas reflect healthy functioning; others reflect unhealthy functioning. Delusions fall into the latter category, representing unhealthy functioning by definition. This does not necessarily mean that the delusional person meets the criteria for a DSM category, or has any organic pathology in the brain. But by definition, unhealthy mental functioning is going on. If someone did that with everything - imagining, for example, that his wife was a hat - we wouldn't hesitate to call the person mentally ill, even if we couldn't identify the reason. The very fact that the mind was that dysfunctional would lead us to say that the person was mentally ill, i.e., not mentally well. But there's no qualitative difference between constant dysfunction and occasional dysfunction; the difference is just a matter of degree. The difference is quantitative but regardless of the quantity, the mind is not functioning properly. That's mental illness, whether it has an organic basis or not, and whether it meets the criteria for a DSM classification or not.Not quite so. Humans have the propensity to name entities to identify, categorize and use names to describe and to elucidate the nature of these entities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name
A name is a word or term used for identification. Names can identify a class or category of things, or a single thing, either uniquely, or within a given context.However, naming an entity is not necessary and sufficient to do that as "the map is not the territory" and we can be deluded as such. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map–territory_relation
The map–territory relation describes the relationship between an object and a representation of that object, as in the relation between a geographical territory and a map of it. Polish-American scientist and philosopher Alfred Korzybski remarked that "the map is not the territory", encapsulating his view that an abstraction derived from something, or a reaction to it, is not the thing itself. Korzybski held that many people do confuse maps with territories, that is, confuse models of reality with reality itself.Bold added by me. Hence, by naming entities we can confuse models of reality with reality itself. The problems of naming, knowing and reality was philosophically analyzed in Russell's seminal essay "On Denoting" which was written in 1905 and is still relevant today. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Denoting
Russell believes at this point that there are essentially two modes of knowing: knowledge by description and knowledge by (direct) acquaintance. Knowledge by acquaintance is limited to the sense data of the phenomenal world and to one's own private inner experiences, while knowledge of everything else (other minds, physical objects, and so on) can only be known by way of general descriptions.Bold added by me. "Mental illness" as the name of a psychiatric condition is a misnomer as it is not a physical illness per se and as such, it is misleading. It is more accurate to use the term mental disorder with some caveats. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_disorder
A mental disorder or psychiatric disorder is a psychological term for a mental or behavioral pattern or anomalythat causes distress or disability, and which is not developmentally or socially normative. Mental disorders are generally defined by a combination of how a person feels, acts, thinks or perceives. This may be associated with particular regions or functions of the brain or rest of the nervous system, often in a social context. The recognition and understanding of mental health conditions have changed over time and across cultures and there are still variations in definition, assessment and classification, although standard guideline criteria are widely used. In many cases, there appears to be a continuum between mental health and mental illness, making diagnosis complex.Bold added by me. So, where is the line of demarcation between mental "health" and "illness"? And what is "healthy versus unhealthy functioning" of the mind? So, the rationale of what I wrote
So, a false belief or idea held with strong conviction despite contrary evidence can be described as delusional for people with no mental illness.is that even people with no mental "illness" can be deluded with false beliefs or ideas which is as it is in reality. :)