Religion and Sociopathy/Psychopathy

[Nava]

@Drunky_Smurf

I’m ashamed that it took all the way until post six for someone to come in and say, “Religion r dumb and da ebil hurr hurr.”

So the new testament doesn’t exist. Interesting.

Or all that other stuff past Genesis (or whichever other Pentateuch book was put down first).

[Lamia]

@Evil_Captor

yes, but sociopaths who are ruthless and harm people thereby are not reprobates, they’re emotional cripples.

How are they not reprobates? If one believes in such things (which I don’t, but we’re talking about those who do) then a sociopath would seem to be as clear an example of a Calvinist reprobate as one could ask for.

I mean, you see a rabid dog wandering the street, you shoot it before it can bite someone, but you don’t think it’s evil or a reprobate. It’s just sick. You feel sorry for it, dangerous as it is.

I assume that Calvinists feel sorry for those they believe are not predestined for salvation, but such people are by definition reprobates.

That said, I don’t think comparing sociopaths to rabid dogs is a useful or accurate analogy. Even a non-rabid dog is far less intelligent than the average human, and a dog with rabies is suffering from disease-induced fear and presumably hallucinations as well (people with rabies experience hallucinations and delusions). Some studies have linked sociopathy to low intelligence, but the relationship isn’t clear and many sociopaths are of at least average intelligence. One of the main symptoms of sociopathy is a lack of fear or diminished fear response, and sociopathy does not cause hallucinations. Sociopaths have poor impulse control, but they do know what they’re doing.

[Enola_Straight]

Throughout the ages, people have noticed unfortunates with crippled bodies and minds; either born that way or suffered loss due to injury or illness.

Is it so hard for an Organized Religion conceive of a crippled soul?

[Boyo_Jim]

@Robert163

I’d say: no. religion has a history, well documented, of blaming mental illness on demons.

I would say almost the opposite. YES, religions do have a way of dealing with various forms of mental illness – they consider people “possessed” and some offer treatment or exorcism. I will not comment on the outcomes of such attempts at cures.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@panache45

I stand by my statement. The evidence is overwhelming.

Tips fedora

[Lamia]

@Enola_Straight

Is it so hard for an Organized Religion conceive of a crippled soul?

I’m no theologian, but I think the Christian concept of Original Sin is basically that everyone has a crippled soul.

If you’re asking whether there are organized religions that make special exceptions for sociopaths then I don’t know of any, but speaking as an atheist I have to say that “doesn’t cut sociopaths enough slack” is not on my personal list of problems with organized religion.

[ITR_champion]

@Evil_Captor

But science now recognizes that there are some human beings who simply lack the capacity to care about other human beings. it’s not that they are morally flawed, it’s that they just don’t have the CAPACITY to care, so that no amount of instruction or encouragement can help them – they can only ape the speech and behaviors that demonstrate caring and kindness, without having the feelings or understanding them.

Do any religions take into account the existence of sociopaths, people who are unable to care through not fault of their own, and if so, how?

To give a serious answer, I think anyone confronting such a debate would probably begin by asking for a citation for the claim about sociopaths, particularly the part about “no amount of instruction and encouragement can help them”. What exactly is the proof that “science” as a whole–rather than a subset of scientists–has determined this, and how was it determined?

[Nava]

@Lamia

I’m no theologian, but I think the Christian concept of Original Sin is basically that everyone has a crippled soul.

Yeah, another way to phrase it is that “evil always seems easier (no, that doesn’t mean the hardest-seeming choice will automatically be the best one)”.

A 'path may not have all those emotional connections other people grow (depending on the degree they will have some), but they still can analyze intellectually whether something will be:

• pleasant but bad for them at a later point (which may be quite close, for example, eating a plateful of fried food when your ulcer has already been acting up)
• good for them but will piss off the people around them (which in turn may have unpleasant consequences)
• good for them, bad for others, and these others may not even realize they’re being shafted,
• good for them and their closest people, bad for the rest
• a general positive
  etc etc
  and make a choice. They’re unemotional, not stupid.