Christians Are Mentally Ill?

Discovering Satellite Radio

A little over a month ago I bought a Sirius satellite radio and one-year subscription. If you do not know what satellite radio is, it is a technologically advanced alternative to terrestrial radio (e.g., local FM stations), a subscription-based digital radio signal which is broadcast via communications satellite. Absolutely fantastic.

I blame Leroy. Right, you do not know who he is. Neither do I, for that matter—he is a friend of a friend who had an opportunity to do me a favour. But that neither matters nor relieves him of his odious culpability. Leroy and I took a 530-kilometer (330-mile) road trip together and he had satellite radio in his car. I quickly fell in love with it, for a few reasons but primarily because we could listen to the same station no matter how far we drove. So I had to get one for myself.

Initially my excitement was over being able to listen to Christian music, finally. Here in the city of Kelowna, British Columbia, there are four FM stations: one Pop station (Sun FM) with predictable fare, one Rock station (Power 104) with a good blend of contemporary and classic rock, and two Adult Contemporary stations (Silk FM; The Juice) playing music from the '80s and '90s plus today's hits. No Christian music stations. Zero. Yes, I know that if I bought a component stereo system I could hook it up to cable and receive Christian radio, but they are neither practical nor portable and I spend more time in my car and at work than at home.

But I love Christian music. Songs like "Finally Home" by MercyMe make my argument for me. So for the first couple of weeks after getting my satellite radio I was listening to Sirius Spirit (066) almost exclusively. But eventually I wanted to explore what else I could listen to with Sirius. There is a vast amount of music available, covering almost every conceivable genre—including Grunge, which I was happy to find—but then I discovered something that effectively kept me away from music altogether.

Talk Radio

I was instantly in love. Of course, being an intellectual elitist (which is what a person is when they have a passion for impeccable grammar and critical thinking, you see), I was obviously in my glory. When it comes to talk radio on Sirius I have three addictions, listed in order of their jones factor: CNN on 132, Indie Talk on 110, and Sirius Left on 146. (I have tried but I cannot listen to Sirius Patriot on 144, the right-wing ward. I am not retarded enough to swallow their inane bile. Their identities say it all—Sean Hannity, Cam Edwards, G. Gordon Liddy, etc. I do honestly try but I can take it only in small doses.)

My love for CNN is self-explanatory for anyone with cable television and a similar love for politics. On Sirius Left I enjoy only the Thom Hartmann and Stephanie Miller shows. (Stephanie kicks ass.) The other shows lean a bit too far to the left for my Centrist liking—and Lynn Samuels could be entertaining if only she would stop whining and bawling about Hillary Clinton losing the 2008 Democratic nomination, or insisting that she'll end up in a Jewish concentration camp under a Nazi President Obama. Yes, for real. Listen to her sometime.

Indie Talk (Sirius 110)

And on Indie Talk there are two shows I enjoy. I am enthralled with the Ron Silver show mostly because he is so intelligent, articulate, and knowledgeable and he engages issues with penetrating depth; however, his two-hour show airs way too early in the morning here so I often miss it or catch only the last hour. And I have yet to discover when it replays. And what else? For me personally, there is usually nothing interesting on the Me & Vinnie show, and it does not feel like John Devore has figured out what to do with The DMZ yet (and there are way too many moments of long silence where no one is talking). And, sorry Joe Salzone, The Blog Bunker gets no love from me, player. (All joking aside, that is a fairly decent show. But I have usually dialed back to CNN during that time slot.)

[Note: As of 12/Nov/08, Sirius XM began broadcasting combined channel lineups across both the Sirius and XM platforms. One of the channels affected was Sirius 110, with Indie Talk being dissolved and replaced with POTUS Politics and its own lineup of programming. As a consequence, The DMZ with John Devore and The Blog Bunker with Joe Salzone are gone, while Me & Vinnie with Vinnie Politan has moved to Sirius 108. However, they kept the Ron Silver and Pete's Big Mouth shows, but renamed the latter.]

Pete's Big Mouth

The other show I enjoy is called Stand Up! With Pete Dominick (formerly Pete's Big Mouth). It is hosted by Pete Dominick, a stand-up comic from New York with a national circuit whose radio program exhibits a passion for political and social issues. His show is provocative, incisive, and compelling, due in large part to Pete being so incredibly outspoken while insisting on honesty, openness, and integrity. And also due in part to the types of callers he receives and how he engages them, including the comic relief of Deep Breath Steve and Mosquito Dan. And after a week of hearing Alexandra do the Blogcast, I am consecrating myself to her... *sighs happily*

Anyway, I listen to his show every single day, Monday to Friday from 12:00pm until 3:00pm here on the west coast. My commitment to the show pushes the threshold of ridiculous; I will do anything to avoid missing even a minute of it. Yes, it is seriously that good. Got Sirius? I highly recommend this show.

But there are disagreements between myself and Pete. Maybe that plays some part in my love for the show. To some degree. There are some things we agree on but that is somewhat predictable with me being politically Centrist (who leans a bit to the left on economic issues), because a Centrist can find some things in common with nearly anyone. And at least to some degree we are both critical thinkers; for now I think the weight of evidence indicates that I am a more consistent critical thinker than Pete is. But he could change. I just need to disabuse him of his commitment to Sam Harris.

Which is actually a convenient segue because one of the most notable points we disagree over is Christianity. We traveled very different paths—Pete went from Christian to non-believer while I went the reverse—and that leaves a lot of issues for us to disagree over, probably enough fill a small book (e.g. issues like 'gay marriage' and 'abortion' and even more fundamental issues like 'morality', never mind the obvious issue of God's existence).

Mentally ill?

And one of the absolute thorniest issues for me currently is Pete's often expressed sentiment that Christians are "mentally ill" if they believe that God has anything to do with American politics, particularly with respect to this 2008 Presidential election race. The first time he dropped this gratuitous invective on the show I dismissed it. It was a heated monologue regarding some religiously zealous comment Sarah Palin had recently made (about God vindicating Republicans on November 4th or something) and I know that a person can speak a little too consonant with their bias in the heat of the moment. Of course we all have our biases so I would never criticize someone for that, but he has expressed this sentiment on more than one occasion and nearly always with similar wording, especially that "mentally ill" characterization.

If Pete Dominick is genuinely concerned about intellectual honesty and integrity—and I think he has given his listeners enough reason to believe he is—then I have to call him on this issue and hold him to that standard which he professes for himself, and for which I have come to admire him.

Critical Analysis

So let's ask the pertinent question: Is it a fair and accurate characterization? Is a Christian who holds that belief truly 'mentally ill'? I think we can eliminate a significant portion of this discussion right from the start by Pete's implied concession that it is neither accurate nor fair to characterize them as 'mentally ill' in the clinical sense. First, I know from talking to him that Pete has no formal education or training in the area of mental health so it is probably safe to conclude, given this inability to defend it academically, that he does not mean it in the clinical sense (e.g., as would be listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders). Second, Pete admitted to me in a personal email, "When I say 'mental illness' I might be wrong. I am sure my definition of what religion can do to influence the way your mind works could be called something more accurate" [1]. So here we have Pete conceding, at least implicitly, that the characterization worded that way is neither fair nor accurate.

Therefore it is probable that he means it as a pejorative akin to 'delusional'. But there is a pertinent question here, too: Does this hold any more water than 'mentally ill' did? As a point of fact, no it certainly does not. In a strictly clinical sense, a delusion is pathological (i.e., the result of an illness) and the characterization is admittedly indefensible at that level. But in more common usage, a delusion is a belief that is held despite invalidating evidence, a "fixed false belief." For example, if I believe that there is a cup on the table, but every relevant standard of empirical analysis demonstrates that there is not, then my belief is delusional.

So here is the question: Can this be said about Christians who believe that God is involved with American elections? Possibly, but it shoulders a burden of proof that has to be met. You see, in order to claim that they are in some way delusional, Pete has to present the evidence which invalidates their belief; i.e., he has to show that the belief is false. If the belief cannot be demonstrated as false, if there is no contrary evidence that invalidates the belief, Pete cannot appropriately deem it delusional nor defend such a notion rationally.

So a Christian who believes that God is involved with American elections (hereinafter 'X') is neither 'mentally ill' nor 'delusional' because X does not meet the criteria of either label. Period. This is the conclusion that must be confronted by anyone who esteems intellectual honesty.

There is still another angle Pete could take. He could claim that the reason why Christians are delusional if they believe X is because there is not sufficient evidence for their belief. However, there are three very serious problems with this angle.

The first and most obvious problem is that the burden of proof shouldered by the label 'delusional' is not magically met by pointing to some absence of evidence; it requires an existence of evidence which invalidates X, showing it to be false. Pointing to some absence of evidence is wholly inadequate in the rational arena. And for someone who takes critical thinking seriously, that must matter.

The second problem is even more severe. The claim that there is not sufficient evidence for X shoulders a unique and impossibly heavy burden of proof itself. Pete can claim that he has not been presented with sufficient evidence, but it is very bad reasoning to conclude that therefore none exists. It is a conclusion that simply does not follow (i.e., non-sequitur), since there very well could be sufficient evidence that Pete has simply not be shown yet.

The third problem is the most severe of all. To conclude that X is false because it has not been proven true is a logical fallacy; specifically, argumentum ad ignorantiam. Ergo, for Pete to hold that X is false he must, as with the first problem I mentioned, present contrary evidence that invalidates X. Without such contrary evidence, Pete must admit X could be true—which, please understand, is a very different thing from believing it himself—that it is not necessarily false nor is it demonstrably false.

According to generally accepted standards of sound reason, Pete must admit—in order to sustain intellectually honesty—that Christians who believe X may be of very sound mind, that they may have good reason for believing it, that they are not necessarily mentally ill nor anything similar. He may not have been presented sufficient evidence for X himself, but he has no evidence to the contrary either.

In Closing

As a closing thought, I should point out that Christians who believe X cannot rationally be called simpletons either (or any scathing synonyms)—at least, not on account of X itself because that belief is actually an in-depth conclusion drawn from a unique complex of strong philosophical arguments (and, where required, responsible exegesis of the relevant scriptural texts).

Although I readily agree that some Christians could be characterized properly and fairly as simpletons, it is only when they believe things blindly or uncritically; e.g., they believe X but they cannot reason why (e.g., other than their pastor told them, for example), or they claim the Bible says so but are incapable of showing where. This point must be stressed: If they are simpletons it is because of some rational or heuristic shortcoming on their part. It is not because of X itself, for there is nothing simplistic or immature about X. That I can certainly defend.

One must remember that there are roughly two billion Christians in the world. Whatever your experiences with Christians have been, it was necessarily a very small segment of an otherwise vast population—especially if that experience was with Christians in the United States, and especially if it was with Christians of a particular sect (e.g., Catholic, Baptist, etc.). There are a very large number of Christians (e.g., over one million Presbyterians, like myself) who believe X and can state precisely why, describing exactly the philosophical argument—and the biblical argument, if required, showing where the Bible states quite pointedly that ultimately it is God that decides who comes to power and who is unseated from power (e.g., Dan. 2:21, Rom. 13:1, etc.). They are not simpletons, they are not delusional, they are not mentally ill, and they do not deserve such pejoratives.


----------
[1] Dominick, Peter. "RE: I'm doing a blog post involving you." Email to the author. 28 Oct. 2008.