Finding a cure for religion

From a question in Answerbag and with the approval of its author the following: Given the huge advances in Neuroscience in recent years, do you think we may have a cure for religion within your lifetime?

You mean like a pill? :smiley:

I’m not sure, given the advances (on all levels) we have made, I’d have said we should have been there already… that we aren’t is an indication that for some ignorance really is bliss.

I mean, I look at the world and it is simply, abundantly, irrefutably clear as daylight that there is no God or godly involvement or intervention anywhere in any sphere and yet there are people killing other people for not believing in their particular brand of godliness.

There aren’t enough words in all the languages in all theworld to adequately explain the stupidity.

I dispair that that won’t change anytime soon.

The questioner is quite serious and commented that religion is a delusion disorder that could theoretically at least be treated by some electroshock therapy, biological therapy or whatever it is they may use for schizophrenia, paranoia etc. The possibility of hypnotherapy to detect the source of the disorder is another thought. As I see it, religion needs first to be diagnosed as a disorder in the same way being ‘possessed by devils’ was diagnosed as epilepsy or something like that. Is it possible that we may have the seed of a line of investigation here why people hang on to these delusional ideas? Look at what Wiki says re the characteristics of delusion and match them with the woo woos:
"[i]The following can indicate a delusion:

1.The patient expresses an idea or belief with unusual persistence or force.
2.That idea appears to exert an undue influence on his or her life, and the way of life is often altered to an inexplicable extent.
3.Despite his/her profound conviction, there is often a quality of secretiveness or suspicion when the patient is questioned about it.
4.The individual tends to be humorless and oversensitive, especially about the belief.
5.There is a quality of centrality: no matter how unlikely it is that these strange things are happening to him, the patient accepts them relatively unquestioningly.
6.An attempt to contradict the belief is likely to arouse an inappropriately strong emotional reaction, often with irritability and hostility.
7.The belief is, at the least, unlikely, and out of keeping with the patient’s social, cultural and religious background.
8.The patient is emotionally over-invested in the idea and it overwhelms other elements of his or her psyche.
9.The delusion, if acted out, often leads to behaviors which are abnormal and/or out of character, although perhaps understandable in the light of the delusional beliefs.
10.Individuals who know the patient will observe that his or her belief and behavior are uncharacteristic and alien.[i]

If there were such a pill, convincing a substantial majority of the world’s population that they are, indeed, deluded, and getting them to take the pill (where it isn’t banned instantly), would be a … challenge… (pill merely being a figurative example of a “cure”)

7.The belief is, at the least, unlikely, and out of keeping with the patient's social, cultural and religious background.

Wait wait waaaiiiit a second. The DEFINITION of delusion explicitly excludes anything religious as being delusional?! AAAAAARRRRGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!

so how about we redefine delusional disorder to include it and advise Wiki accordingly?

So, by this definition, those who start religions are delusional, but those who follow them are not?

Yes, upgrades. ;D

I wonder how persistent this person is going to be in expressing his idea that religion needs a cure lol.

2.That idea appears to exert an undue influence on his or her life, and the way of life is often altered to an inexplicable extent.
Hope his life is not altered to much by his persistent belief that religion needs a cure. Would not want the person to become obsessed like some religious folk >:D.
3.Despite his/her profound conviction, there is often a quality of secretiveness or suspicion when the patient is questioned about it.
Does the person have some secret scientific evidence about the disease status of religion. The world needs to know.
4.The individual tends to be humorless and oversensitive, especially about the belief.
He does seem a bit serious not? Maybe he is in the grip of some memetic virus... Perhaps some comic relief will cure him from the virus :D

5.There is a quality of centrality: no matter how unlikely it is that these strange things are happening to him, the patient accepts them relatively unquestioningly.
About that scientific evidence....
6.An attempt to contradict the belief is likely to arouse an inappropriately strong emotional reaction, often with irritability and hostility.
Hey, you can't discount the possibility that the guy is in the grips of some strange memetic virus, shame man etc etc etc....

So how can I trust this guy if he does not have scientific evidence that my condition is in need of a cure and that he might not be in the middle of some vicious memetic virus season ;D?

So far I have only seen speculation as to whether or not it is possible to cure people of religion not whether or not people needed it. Presumably some people might want to be cured, others not. I don’t personally think a cure is needed and that it will eventually no longer be a problem, but others may disagree.

Some religious people want to be “cured” of homosexuality. I don’t personally think a “cure” is needed and that it will eventually no longer be a problem, but others may disagree.

OK, does anyone think it would be possible to “cure” homosexuality and how would that compare with curing religion? Are male and female or gay and straight brains more different than religious verses non-religious? I think they would be, but it’s just a hunch.

I don’t think it’s the same thing. If being religious conforms to being delusional, being gay doesn’t.

Agreed it’s not the same thing, religious people can’t even change their own minds about being gay. It seems that changing your religion is much easier than changing your sexual preference.

I think the guy needs to find a cure for consciousness first if being conscious conforms to being delusional… as naturalism, materialism, meme theory etc. suggest.

the cure for religion is knowledge. plain and simple. no pill would do the trick.
to compare the involuntary incilination towards homosexuality and religion, wow, that kind of offends me, but anyhows.
when you are gay, then you are gay, you are attracted to someone of your own sex, there isnt a point in time when you think, hey, i wanna be a lesbian, that would be fun.
you are born gay, you arent born religious.
religion is invaded upon yourself without you giving consent to it.
when you are given the truth about religion, you can decide for yourself if you still want to pursue god, or become atheist, or whatever.
there is no truth about homosexuality, so its not a case of, o, ok, if that is how i works, i prefer not to be gay.

this kinda shows how there still is a hugely misunderstood view on homosexuality. its not a choice, or a lifestyle, or a culture, its in your dna. its not like you wake up one day, and think, i want to become a goth. or i want to quit my job.
its not something to be fixed, or unconvinced. its not a rebellious inclination, that one will grow out of. its not attention seeking either.

anyhows. end of rant. ;D

OK maybe there’s a misunderstanding in this thread: the original question had to do with advances in Neuroscience as a possible approach to ‘curing’ those who are delusional about religion. The characteristics quoted are from Wiki, not the questioner. It doesn’t however change my stance that the diagnosis that religion is a psychotic condition needs to be subjected to scientific experimentation, confirmed/rejected/etc. before you can start considering a ‘cure’. Obviously this hasn’t happened, so the question raises another line of enquiry: Is religion a delusional disorder? Dawkins seems to think it is. (He advocates religion as ‘viruses of the mind’ and as an accidental by-product of evolution–a misfiring of something useful) He asks “Are religions such stuff as memes are made on?”

Fully agree GCG

Well Susan Blackmore, a meme-theorist that Dawkins cites, is of the opinion that “consciousness is an illusion constructed by the memes”.
Could you come up with a single example of a thought or belief that is not an accidental by-product of evolution and constructed by memes? It does not help you to say some things or thoughts or beliefs are misfiring of something useful. This is also just as a result of your thoughts and beliefs that are accidental by-products of evolution and constructed by memes, and remember, consciousness is an illusion constructed by the memes so you might have mind virus as well…

You’re avoiding the question. Is religion a delusional disorder and Should it be subjected to scientific research? I merely quoted Dawkins as someone of standing who thinks so.

in my humble opinion. religion was due to the primitive mind of our ancestors, taking things it sees in nature, and trying to explain what causes it. maybe any mental anomily that can be assigned to it, might be insecurity, maybe a bit of paranoia.
since then, people have been hanging on to this. eventhough all kinds of other ancient practices have fallen by the wayside.
why?
coz those in power have seen the power of stirring the fear and paranoia in the population. the fear of god is a very powerfull and usefull tool to keep the masses in check (and get to their money).
today, the musings of a primitive mind has been refined and perfected, and blown so completely out of proportion, that the human mind is at a loss at how to operate without religion.
i wonder, if there are studies of these wild kids, who grew up with wolves or whatnot, how they view the world, how they think things happen, if they automatically assign the sun rising to some deity. or whether they just accept it as normal occurances.
if religion was taken away, would the human mind still create its own gods/faires/spirits, or would it accept science as enough?
maybe its what spurred on our evolution, this hunger to explain nature, the world, the universe. maybe religion served its purpose in its time to provoke the infant human race into greatness, but instead of evolving onto greater things, its now gotten stuck here.
obviously there is, and has been, a movement towards moving away from religion, and its evident throughout all religions and peoples.
i really dont think any manner of medication will make the human mind veer away from religion. the mind needs to be educated, and it will replace fear of hell and damnation, with the knowledge that its hogwash, and no god is holding an axe over his sinning head.
maybe, the fear of hell, is whats keeping society from going apeshit. maybe people arent killing their neighbours, coz they dont wanna burn in hell, nevermind sit in the chookie for how long.
my opinion anyhows.

GCG you’ve almost summed up the basic philosphy of my book…that’s how I also think it all started…in fact there’s a brilliant book I read in the '60’s called “The Source” by James Michener that started me on this trail from being a xtian to atheist and writing a book on how religion starts…(in my first book I first destroy the world, and then the whole frecking process starts again.) Incidentally I noticed that the book is on a special in London as a package deal with ‘Star Wars’ I don’t know if that’s good or bad!