On religion and mental illness

Karl Marx, a 19th century philosopher, told us that religion “is the opium of the people”. He meant not that it makes you believe things that aren’t real and see things that aren’t there, but that it has the soothing and calming effects opium has on the human mind in amongst the turbulence of what goes on in the real world. So then the question becomes, what is real? Is God real? Actually, it’s not what I intend on discussing here, but rather an anecdotal relationship I have noted between those with mental illness and their religious beliefs.

I may have discussed it earlier, but there was the story that was told to me by a neuroscience professor: There was once a very devout Christian religious minister who developed a brain tumour. The tumour affected this man’s thinking capacity, his cognitive function, and interestingly it made him unable to understand or believe in a non-physical, abstract, concept such as God. He lost his faith not because he was disappointed in God, but because the part of his brain related to religious faith was damaged! My professor took this as hard evidence that God and religious faith is nothing more than a human cognitive construct and in fact there is no God out there in wherever a person believes he is. Now, that is a pretty good deduction, but perhaps a bit premature. For example, if the antenna broke on my TV and I could no longer receive the signals that transmit my favourite shows, would I be right in concluding that in fact the television channels never existed in the first place or even that they have stopped transmitting the moment my antenna broke?

The opposite to the scenario proposed by my university professor could also happen. Some people with epilepsy and even those with migraines can experience an “aura” before an attack. The aura is different for everyone and some will suddenly experience a particular taste on their tongue, a music in their ears, a vision in their sight, a smell in their nose, etc. – yet these sensations are all originating from brain activity, not the organs they appear to be coming from. There are the rare people who experience very complex auras, things like seeing a halo-like figure of a person who resembles how a religious figure is depicted in art, or who hear a voice like that of a relative who is now dead. Of course, in the medical world we may call them auras or a sign of temporal lobe epilepsy or aberrant brain activity, but then other people may call them religious experiences. I won’t even try to conclude anything from that for anyone, but it is an interesting thought.

A quote often attributed to Robert M. Pirsig, a writer and philosopher, is “When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion”. As a medical student doing a post in a psychiatric ward, I first started to notice how a large number of patients’ delusions revolved around God and other religious concepts. As an example, a person might believe that electricity is controlled by the devil and every time you plug in an appliance to a powerpoint then that lets the devil into your house. Or she may be obsessed with keeping her clothes clean all the time and protects them from being invaded by others and germs and other such things because she has read some scripture in the bible about guarding your heart and wearing the armour (of faith) and has taken her armour to be her clothes and she guards it by standing in the same spot for hours on end watching out that no one or nothing gets to it. Others have believed they are carrying the devil’s child in their pregnant bellies as foretold by some scripture they have read/misread somewhere. Or that the people putting thoughts in their heads are either angels or demons or God himself and that they must heed their ministry of whatever they’re been instructed to do… These people, however, have ended up in mental hospitals because what they’ve done or attempted to do has posed a threat of physical damage to themselves or others. Generally that is why they’re considered “crazy” and not just a founder (or follower) of a religion with those beliefs.

Now, I will very openly admit to being a Christian; one who believes things about God and other divine creatures that neither I or anyone anywhere on Earth currently has ever seen with human eyes. Yet I also remain curious about the relationship between religious belief and mental illness, especially when it comes to psychosis. Consider a person who has never had any religious inclination at all; perhaps someone the opposite of the religious minister of my neuroscience professor’s story. Suddenly, and I mean within a space of a few days, this person starts to believe that he can speak in a language new to him but that isn’t a language of this world or of a fictional book or film and can be understood by no one of this world. To all human ears he appears to just be making sounds with his mouth. Along with this “speaking in tongues”, he believes that God is giving him dreams that have special meaning about the past, present, and future. He also believes that he has been chosen by God and can exert God’s will of healing by merely touching the infirm of body and/or spirit. Unfortunately, due to his unique position before God, he believes that the devil (God’s enemy) is trying to hurt him. To minimize the hurt from the devil, he may engage in ritualistic behaviours such as rocking back and forth in his chair, hitting his head against the wall, or cutting himself to let out the bad energies. His new life revolves around speaking and singing about God and his newfound faith whenever he can and to whomever is around, sometimes even when no one is around… A psychiatrist may diagnose this man with a delusional disorder. Someone else may say ‘here’s a new member of the Pentecostal church who has reached enlightenment’.

Lastly, I will leave you with a comical quote by George Carlin that I found amusing:

“Religion has convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky, who watches everything you do every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten specific things he doesn't want you to do. And if you do any of these things, he will send you to a special place, of burning and fire and smoke and torture and anguish for you to live forever, and suffer, and suffer, and burn, and scream, until the end of time. But he loves you. He loves you. He loves you and he needs money.” 

On theism

The letter released by Yulia Tymoshenko  from her prison cell reminded me of that common saying that “there are no atheists in fox holes”.  Here’s a link to the letter which is an interesting read if you get the chance. In my case this got me to thinking about theism and why we either believe or don’t believe in God (or Gods).

I believe in God, as in that there is a non-human “thing” that started off the universe and still exists in a metaphysical form with power to intervene in anything that occurs in this universe. That’s how people commonly think of God, right? Then there’s, of course, differences in between what people attribute to God in terms of his powers, things he cares about, his opinion and judgement on human behaviour, things he intervenes in, and how he does so. Can I prove the existence of God or can anyone? No. People may raise certain arguments to support the belief in the existence of God, but there is no definitive proof in the way we commonly think of “proof”.

There are people who deny even the possibility that there may exist this metaphysical being who started off the universe. We call these people atheists. There are very few atheists in this world. I respect an atheist who will live his life according to his belief in the same way I respect a person with a spiritual belief in God who is not ashamed of his belief. There are, however, many people who claim to be atheists who mean only to say they don’t belong to any particular religion. But, then, what exactly is an atheist? It is a person who is self-reliant, who in his time of needs has only himself, his fellow humans, and our physical surroundings to rely on.  What’s wrong with that? Nothing! But what usually happens is when those things fail, most atheists become “believers”.

Why do we believe in God or gods? Because we don’t understand evolutionary theory well enough, because we’re ignorant and uneducated, because we lead empty lives and our spiritual beliefs make us feel like we have a purpose or our actions are relevant, because creationism for some reason makes more sense to us than the alternative, because our parents taught us to believe, because our government dictates we must follow religious doctrine, because believing in God seems right, etc., etc. And why do we not believe in God? Because we’re more than self-reliant – we’re arrogant in believing that we don’t need of anyone or anything , because we’re arrogant in the belief that humanity is the most superior being in the universe and don’t need of an external being or belief in an imaginary creature to survive, because we’ve been blinded and can’t appreciate the benevolence of God, because we’re more intelligent than believing in fairy stories any more, etc., etc. … You would have heard or maybe used any of these statements in the past, no doubt, but who’s right? What’s right?

Does it matter? Knowing whether a person believes in God or not tells you nothing beyond whether a person believes in God or not!  Actions, not beliefs, show our true character.

On an environmentalist

A monkey masturbating!

There is one man I credit with helping me lose the respect I once had for environmentalists. I won’t say his name, but he was a lecturer I once had for a bioethics class at university. Now, this man’s great passion was protecting animal rights, especially as they related to scientific research. He spoke of it all so passionately and realistically. He enjoyed the work of philosopher Peter Singer and he was also a vegetarian. Why do I mention that? Because it means he was a knowledgeable and “true to his cause” environmentalist. Anyhow, it was well understood knowledge that he was a very well accomplished ethicist and so he had the attention of all of us students. And then he let me down.

He, like many scientists and philosophers, admitted he was an atheist. Is that wrong? No; a person believes what they choose to believe and as long as it’s not coerced or misinformed, then there is nothing wrong with what they choose to believe. I in fact believe that there are few true atheists, but I’ll discuss that at a later stage. To this man, a “good” man I was lead to believe at that stage (he was an ethicist and an environmentalist, to say the least), the protection of nature, earth, and living creatures on, above, or beneath it was very very important. Wow, there’s a good human being! However, as the lecture moved on, he for some reason I can no longer recall, moved on to the subject of discussing religion. Ok, so he had already made it well known that he didn’t believe in “God” or that religion wasn’t of his preference. But he started to discuss a neighbour of his, a man he didn’t like: a man who was a Jehovah’s Witness in Christian belief.

So let me frame this for you so you understand why I found what he said so offensive and despicable. Firstly, he comes in with a reputation that he knows inspires respect and influence. Secondly, his reputation is that of a “good” man: one who cares about and defends defenceless animals and the natural environment. Thirdly, he is put in a position to educate very keen and suggestible young adults. It would be a great and excellent platform to incite some passion or at least enthusiasm for a good cause. He could have chosen to inspire us to defend the environment, to protest, to petition higher authorities for change and justice, to be kind to animals, to support the defenceless, to acknowledge the inherent power of a human being who is passionate in his pursuit of a definitive goal, etc.

What did he do instead? He told a story of his neighbour who is a Jehovah’s Witness. Now, the neighbour was a “bad” neighbour because he insisted on greeting him pleasantly over the fence between their properties, was always so jolly, and always wanted to make friendly conversation about anything at all. You know, the kind of guy like Ned Flanders from ‘The Simpsons’ who irritates because of his good nature. Similarly, this Jehovah’s Witness was a ‘bad’ man, he had us believe, for doing just that. So then this guy, this great ethicist, disclosed a fantasy of his: he said he would love to collect a whole bunch of leeches and set them free onto his neighbour until the leeches had sucked away all his blood, and given that he was a Jehovah’s Witness, watch him then die as he refused a blood transfusion. He laughed after telling this story. He laughed and then after a short awkward silence, the whole auditorium laughed with him. And then he continued the lecture on how a good person must ensure to promote the wellbeing of the environment and animals.

I was not at that stage a fully convinced Christian so I wasn’t offended for that reason, but I found his behaviour to be almost an abuse of power. Sure, in the right context it could have been considered a funny joke, but what was disturbing is that he was in a position of teaching, and we all learn best by example whether we believe it or not. Knowing he was an influential man in front of an impressionable crowd, he chose to spread disdain and hatred instead of promoting a humanitarian cause, or even just doing what he was being paid to do and teach us about the ethical use/care of animals in science. And what further aggravated me was the hypocrisy of claiming to be for the very humanitarian causes of protecting the environment and non-human species, and at the same time being capable of such great non-humanitarian discrimination, if not hatred, of a group of people. I say a group of people because he never said his neighbour’s name, he referred to him as “a Jehovah’sWitness”. I lost all respect for that man that day. I still consider it a shame that he is allowed such an awarded role in the university and still exposing impressionable students to his dichotomous, and somewhat concerning, views of the world and the creatures on it.

How is it possible that a person be able to love animals, to want to preserve and protect them from harm, and yet be so careless about the dominant animal species: humanity? If I wanted to keep a mouse alive, wouldn’t I consider it an equally respectable aim to keep a human being alive? If I considered it wrong to cruelly beat an animal, then why would I support or even promote the discrimination and abuse of a group of people? A lot of people who are passionate about the environment tell me their passion is because these animals, these trees and lakes and oceans, can’t protect themselves. And not only that, they do no harm to anyone. A human being, on the other hand, can not only defend himself but also launch an offence / attack towards other humans, towards animals, and towards even the very environment that keeps us alive. Yes, human beings are capable of evil, no doubt, but to admit that a person can be imperfect and to say he warrants death is a massive leap. 

^^^ Hilarious tattoo! - why you should think twice aboout what you put out there :P ^^^