• Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
    If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
    Donations can be made via here

Funny and telling way to see the problem with the DSM's exceptions for religious belief


The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, AKA the DSM, psychology's attempt to list the known mental disorders and the criteria needed to diagnose whether someone suffers from one. Sorta the bible for psychologists. I imagine most here have heard that the DSM has exceptions for religious belief, meaning religious faith leads to behavior that would meet many of the criteria for many disorders. In its glossary, it defines delusion as:
delusion A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly
held despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontro
vertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not ordinarily ac
cepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture (i.e., it is not an article of
religious faith
I was looking into this earlier today and did a search for 'religious' in the pdf version I have. You know how when search for a word in a large document, lots of software will put a little mark in the scroll graphics giving you an idea of where the term will be found. See pic of what you see when you search for 'religious'. It's just full of references to religious belief, hmmm. The area near the middle where it's almost solid, no surprise, that's the chapter on sexual dysfunctions. It's somewhat understandable to view what would otherwise be considered delusions as not a mental disorder if someone is immersed in a culture where everyone has the same delusions, but fuck that, mass delusion is still delusion. AND, just look at that pic!, look at how often religious belief needs that exception, it seems to me kinda obvious that if religion routinely, or in general, or almost always, causes behaviors that would otherwise be considered mentally disturbed but for this exception, then maybe they should see religion/religious belief as toxic to mental health. You could say they're actually kinda doing that, aren't they?


  • religious-in-the-DSM.jpg
    18.3 KB · Views: 3
Oh yeah. I've had one or two debates where the DSM (5 I believe is the latest?) has been cited by my interlocutor and often proves to be problematic in one way or another.
I think the DSM has been controversial for some time if not always. The latest, yes 5, I believe one of the biggest objections was it seeing way too many behaviors as some kind of disorder vs normal human reactions to, say, adverse or atypical situations/conditions, I'm not in any way real up on this kind of stuff. Here, what I'm showing is the opposite, something it goes to great lengths to keep from calling certain behaviors, various behaviors assorted with religious belief, as a disorder when what that really shows, to me anyway, is that religious belief obviously causes a LOT of disordered mental behavior.
When everyone is crazy, no one is crazy. I think it is fair to consider religion (or systemic delusion, if you prefer) when diagnosing mental illness.

We have a long history of using religion to make exceptions for behaviours that would have otherwise have gotten people locked up or killed. It is no surprise to find it codified in the psychology "bible". On the positive side, many of the "saints," profits, and other biblical figures would today likely find themselves in mandated therapy. So we're moving in the right direction. For the most part, we give lip service to religious wonders, but keep a firm grip in reality.