Someone once said insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. We use that quote to justify defying the actions of many people including the religious as crazy, but a jack hammer does the same thing over and over, a hammer does the same thing over and over, and if we had a microscope we could see changes that appear where the naked eye could not see them. If you bend a piece of wire once and expect it to break, you might be considered a fool. But eventually the wire heats up noticeably and then eventually that wire snaps. Again, without repeating the experiment many, many times, you would conclude the early repetitions of the experiment were not producing results. The number of times uranium has to be cycled and refined to produce one useable kilo of material is enormous, requiring enormous machines, much like the large hadron collider. I think it is bad science to assign a limited number of tests or a maximum number of tests to an experiment to prove its empirical nature. Religion is sketchy because there's a conscious actor on the other side of the communication line - almost like Gnomes in the walls flipping light switches. But what if the gnomes in the walls take a nap? Then your light switch doesn't turn on. If you reverse that analogy, where the Gnomes of religion are almost always napping or always ignoring the prayers of people in India, Italy, and Idaho, does that mean that there's no Gnomes? Or put another way, just because a test fails to produce a positive result the first time, or just because it actually produces a result the first time, does not mean secondary or even 10,000 attempts later, we won't end up with different results. Ignorance is not insanity - if it were, all scientists would be insane. Likewise, even if only one religion, or a handful of religions, or none of the existing ones but some future more correct one were true, the fact is the rest of the people having alternative beliefs does not make them crazy, it just makes them wrong.
I agree with you OP but religious people are to stubborn to accept facts do to this mysterious substance they call "faith"
I'm willing to bet in about 100 years time religion will be completely destroyed and frowned upon by most of the population.
Science requires a certian amount of faith too, as it turns out. We have our observations, sure, but who knows if our current model is correct? I mean, Aristotelian physics was the most accepted model for 2000ish years. And yet, relatively new technology debunked that. Aristotle was incredibly intelligent. Who's to say our current model isn't entirely correct? We qeustion it, yes, but we build in relation to it. There's a varying chance everything we consider to be scientifically accurate is wrong.
Seriously. You're bored, and alone, and you sit there daydreaming about some fantasy world? How is that any worse than watching tv or reading video games, or any other stupid hobby?
Also, I bet these maladaptive daydreamers are the ones writing all our novels.
Pretty soon they're gonna have a disorder whose one symptom is having to get up in the middle of the night to urinate.
It's actually not a matter of if or not; the extremely religious are classified mentally ill and they are documented. Here's some pointers as to why:
A) The lack of personal responsibility of one's own actions.
Like the victimization of anyone with Narcissistic Disorder, Borderline, and the likes; to dump total and all self-responsibility upon a religious belief denounces one's right to claim sanity. In short; saying "God told me so" doesn't work.
B) Replacement of words.
Because religion is a widely accepted practice throughout the world and some countries are more tolerant than others towards it (or extreme) a simple replacement of words sometimes depicts mental defect. "Jesus saved me from the burning building because I prayed every night" Replace 'Jesus' with 'Aliens' or hell, 'Big Bird'. "Aliens saved me from the burning building because I prayed every night." Riiiiight.
Let's use the same sentence as an example: "Jesus saved me from the burning building because I prayed every night". No. Captain Mark Schmidt, 17-year-vet fire-fighter saved you from the burning building. People really do twist the reality in which the live in towards something in favor of some religious attribute because, rather than accept the reality as it is they'd rather seek comfort in the familiar... just like crack-addicts seek comfort in the familiar pipe.
It's also seen a lot in medicine. "God saved me from cancer" No. Countless people working near-round the clock on your cases, reviewing medications, treatment, running tests, and pushing papers, drugs, and then explaining in lament terms to the patient and family are to thank. The amount of people involved in caring for a cancer patient is endless. Yet, rather than thank those people who spent years and money to go to school so they could be cared for; they'd pick a religious figure before any of us mortal workers.
D) Placebo effect
In most cases, the religion attribute isn't considered a mental illness rather than placebo effect. If it makes the person happy and be able to have some form of functionality through life? Fine. Let them have it.
E) Actual Classification of Mental Illness
When it boils down to it, two scales are used "The 4 D's of Abnormality" and the "Global Assessment of Functioning"
The 4 D's consist of:
Deviance: How secretive, distrusting, and otherwise 'abnormal' are they behaving? (The caution with this in regards to cross-cultural; what's abnormal for us might be normal for someone else).
Distress: How stressed is the person? Mildly annoyed or screaming/praying etc.
Dysfunction: Usually judged by physical appearance; are they clothed, bathed, groomed or have they not showered in a week and running the streets with merely socks on? In less extreme senses; are the smoking or drinking or using some sort of crutch to deal with life?
Danger: How much of a threat are they posing to themselves or others?
Global Assessment of Functioning:
Or GAF. It's a scale that nearly arbitrarily decides on a percentage value (0-100%) of what amount of help the person needs.
A person who adjusts well in society, maybe even goes to church, supports the family and pays the bills and such would be considered a high functioned being in the sense he or she is not posing any sort of threat, and the religious views are not hindering any sense of their lively hood. Someone who's going about town screaming about conspiracy theories, struggling with child support and spending most of their minimum wage job on drugs will score... significantly lower.
In a total view, religion is viewed as a diagnostic issue if the person presents symptoms of why it should be considered such.
All bipolar folks aren't fed drugs because not all bipolar people need it. It varies from degrees in which the person can function.
I don't think religion on it's own is a mental illness but i do think there is a common mental illness that leads to religion or some other crazy ideas. Just like all those suicidal cult members are all screwed up in the head most of the extreme religious people are the same but a large majority are just doing it out of family tradition and don't take it so seriously i only think the extreme religious cooks that dispute science are the mentally ill and the followers are simply weak minded victims.