Religion and Mental Illness

[Laurens]

In order to illustrate my point we shall imagine two hypothetical people.

Person A is a diagnosed schizophrenic who suffers from paranoid delusions. They believe that the government is sending coded messages to them through the TV and various people they are in contact with. They feel like their whole life has been a big conspiracy and that they are inadvertently a secret government agent being controlled and manipulated by powerful external forces.

Person B is a convinced religious believer. They believe that God has chosen them specifically to evangelise the gospels, and that they have a special gift of communication with God through prayer in order to do this. They firmly believe that God is in control of their destiny and that God communicates to them through the events of their life.

Question: In terms of psychology is there much difference between Person A and Person B?

 

[Laurens]

Both Person A and Person B feel like an external force is somehow guiding them. The both believe that they are able to receive communications from this powerful external force. The both believe that they are on some kind of mission and under some kind of external guidance (which might require interpretation).

Is it perhaps that the only major difference is a social one? Person B would be respected and allowed freedom to believe those things about them because it religion and therefore acceptable. Person A's beliefs are less conventional and therefore viewed as signs of mental illness, in need of treatment.

 

[Nordmann]

Hi Laurens

The Encyclopedia Britannica provides a concise definition for delusion as the term is understood in psychology and paricularly in the detection and treatment of clinical mental illnesses:

"A rigid system of beliefs with which a person is preoccupied and to which the person firmly holds, despite the logical absurdity of the beliefs and a lack of supporting evidence."

In your examples of persons A and B I would agree that there is little to distinguish between them in terms of their delusionality. However I would be more concerned with the mental health of person B, for the simple reason that his or her particular delusion is one which incorporates the belief that the individual's moral compass and code are steered by external forces outside of their control and that this empowers them to act proactively both in defence of their delusion against any perceived threat and in seeking to persuade others to share their delusion. I use the term "sharing" here in its loosest sense since historically we have many examples of techniques far exceeding simple attempts at persuasion which have been employed to this end.

This makes the sufferers of that particular delusion far more of a potential threat in social terms, in my view. Whereas person A's delusion can be resolved hopefully in a general treatment of that person's clinical illness on an individual patient basis, person B's delusion is less likely ever to be resolved in such a way since by virtue of the fact that it is shared by so many it has acquired therefore an illusion of reality which is sufficient to recruit people into subscribing to it at a rate far in excess of that at which its sufferers can be cured individually.

 

[Prolescum]

Oh for fuck's sake.

 

[FaithlessThinker]

The Encyclopedia Britannica provides a concise definition for delusion as the term is understood in psychology and paricularly in the detection and treatment of clinical mental illnesses:

"A rigid system of beliefs with which a person is preoccupied and to which the person firmly holds, despite the logical absurdity of the beliefs and a lack of supporting evidence."

Isn't that the definition for religion?

 

[Nordmann]

Prolescum - good point. Or else you dropped something heavy on your toe just as you wrote it. Hard to know.

Faithless thinker - religious observation and its various manifestations tend to coincide in definition terms with quite a list of clinical descriptions of mental illness. Check the glossary at the back of most psychology textbooks and you can almost construct a "Name the Faith" parlour game with what you find there.

Admittedly a weird parlour populated by weird people, but ....

 

[Prolescum]

Prolescum - good point. Or else you dropped something heavy on your toe just as you wrote it. Hard to know.

Then allow me to clear it up a bit.

Oh for fuck's sake, not yet another one of these threads where a bunch of (probably atheist) pseuds pontificate over de-humanising the religious by equating them all with the mentally ill and the deluded.

This makes the sufferers of that particular delusion far more of a potential threat in social terms, in my view.

Almost everyone on this planet is religious already, do you cower in a basement incapacitated by the probability of a potential threat or are they unlikely to have much of a real effect on your life at all?

If you live in a democracy, shame on you for stooping to the level of scumbag.

 

[Memeticemetic]

Oh settle down, Prole. The matter at hand isn't religious belief per se, but that particular flavor of religiosity in which actual freakin' voices are heard. You know, actual symptoms of actual mental disorders. Disorders that will likely go untreated when those so afflicted are inured in a religious community that encourages such delusions.

Actually, don't settle down, Prole. It's far more entertaining when your knickers are in a twist.

 

[Nordmann]

Much more lucid from you Polescum, thanks.

You may of course pontificate about what you interpret as pontification as much as you like, and you may even dismiss points of view other than your own as pseud on that basis, but you cannot deny that the definition of delusion and the definition of religious belief do coincide on all the basics, which is essentially the theme of the thread (duh!).

I'm not sure what your inference regarding democracy is, or why whatever it is within that inference then makes me a scumbag, though I would regard you as being rather rash in that particular judgement too, and wonder if such a propensity to be gratuitously offensive is a proof of the limits of your intellect, your vocabulary or simply just bad manners. Anyway, that's your problem (thankfully).

You appear to suggest that if, in a democracy, a majority suffer from a common delusion then that's perfectly ok then. Majority rules and all that. You then suppose that the reaction of the non-delusional minority must be either to "cower in a basement" or simply accept that a delusional majority exists and take what's coming to them on that basis. As a blueprint for social advancement I would tentatively suggest that it is one which indeed has been tried before and - to put it mildly - proved rather retrograde. It also tends towards a system which proves anything but democratic in principle and practise, but that's another story.

When you realise the extreme limitations you impose on yourself by restricting yourself to such few and unimaginative options, or by then inferring that all others should do the same, and especially through adopting an intimidatory attitude against anyone who might disagree with such a defeatist and basically dumb concept as the one you seem happy to represent, then maybe any future lucidity on your part might lead to actual debate rather than simply the opportunity for you to continue with even more rancorous and rude statements of opinion badly expressed.

You seem however to be quite happy to settle for less, at least on the basis of your intervention in this thread. I am sure you will find plenty of others to engage in that level of communication with - they also appear to be a rather unfortunate majority. But not with me.

 

[Laurens]

How is it dehumanising to compare religious belief to insanity? Unless you posit that people with mental issues are sub-human. I was making no such claim. I was merely drawing comparisons between the two things. I didn't say all religious people believe the same things as Person B, and I'm not saying all religious people are ill. I am saying that those who believe similar things to Person B might well be though.

 

[scorpion9]

basically....i think that no professional psychologist could honestly say to a deeply religious person that he/she is 100% mentally ok.

Culturally religious people are ok in my opinion, and even moderately deluded people. Delusion itself doest qualify as mental illness, however, strong delusions can easily spawn mental disorders, like compulsive behaviors, skitsofrenia, phobias and paranoias.
Religion offers a nice cover where symptoms of mental issues can go unnoticed. Just think about it yourself....if you actually and deeply believed the major cult manuscripts. How paranoid would you be.

 

[borrofburi]

Oh for fuck's sake, not yet another one of these threads where a bunch of (probably atheist) pseuds pontificate over de-humanising the religious by equating them all with the mentally ill and the deluded.

I agree in a tangent way. They're not (usually) insane. The far more apt comparison is with brainwashing; especially when you see the parallels between those proselytizing "you should convert" speeches and actual brainwashing.

 

[Nordmann]

Mental illness does not infer insanity. They are two separate expressions for a good reason - namely that they are two distinct states, both clinically and legally.

Delusional behaviour is not proof of serious mental illness, let alone insanity, but it is a strong indication that a person's mental health is not at its best and that the individual's critical faculties are impaired. Delusional behaviour which predisposes the sufferer to encourage others to participate in his delusion and share it is just one variety of such an indicator, but it is also by its nature a problem with broader social implications than any single particular delusion suffered by any one individual, however sane or insane that person might be. Religion relies for its propagation on that very same syndrome being accepted as socially acceptable behaviour and even on being protected from attempts at preventing it do so by exploiting the social structure itself to achieve this end.

Depending on the social structure in question this can manifest itself in various ways. In a society which enshrines democratic principles then it will attempt to exploit the machinery based on those principles to protect itself. But it will do the same whatever the political model of its surroundings and in which the subscribers to religious beliefs happen to live. If successful (and it is successful more often than not) then one can readily see how the delusions at its core become virulent in their propagatory capabilities.

But that does not make them any less delusional, or any more right by virtue of their subscribers being numerically in a majority in a setting in which democratic representation is the standard political model. It makes them simply a harder problem to tackle in terms of general mental health.

 

[Aught3]

Most religious people don't have a mental illness, though mental illnesses cab manifest as religious experiences. In terms of delusion I can buy it as a metaphor - religion as an all-encompassing, strongly held, yet false belief. But everybody holds some beliefs that are false so I'd rather say that they're mistaken about their beliefs.

Also: Schizophrenia

 

[Nordmann]

And that's fair enough. The question is how do you account for a great number of people sharing the same misconception? It is obviously not coincidence, and nor can it be that a majority sharing the same delusion makes the misconception a valid one when it still fails under standard rational scrutiny.

In that scenario one can for certain say that the majprity are mistaken about their beliefs, but then one has still failed to address the relevance of the fact that the majority is similarly mistaken about the same belief. One has to dig deeper to find what's really going on there, and that's where the social dimension of how mental health is measured and accommodated comes into focus.

Religion - and especially when it has its strategies and tactics well organised - argues against this as a valid line of investigation, and actively attempts to prevent it if it can. Why?

 

[Prolescum]

Oh settle down, Prole. The matter at hand isn't religious belief per se, but that particular flavor of religiosity in which actual freakin' voices are heard. You know, actual symptoms of actual mental disorders.

We'll see.

Person B fits the description of person A with these exceptions: god replaces government, and A is noted as having been diagnosed medically.

Laurens' question was:

Question: In terms of psychology is there much difference between Person A and Person B?

He has already set up the answer in his OP, but he then continues (even after acknowledging himself that they are the same) with the following:

Is it perhaps that the only major difference is a social one? Person B would be respected and allowed freedom to believe those things about them because it religion and therefore acceptable. Person A's beliefs are less conventional and therefore viewed as signs of mental illness, in need of treatment.

Which is where oh for fuck's sake comes in. Person A has already been diagnosed, his views about a conspiracy are irrelevant. Person B, were he showing the very same psychosis as Person A (which he is in this scenario) would receive the same treatment whether he heard Thor, Rael or Jesse Jackson (unless it continues undiagnosed, but the same is true of Person A were he undiagnosed).

Disorders that will likely go untreated when those so afflicted are inured in a religious community that encourages such delusions.

Go to http://davidicke.com (or one of the other thousands of similar sites) and you will see the same disorders that will likely go untreated when those so afflicted are inured in a community that encourages such delusions.

Actually, don't settle down, Prole. It's far more entertaining when your knickers are in a twist.

Definitely. Isn't that one of the reasons we frequent fora ?

Much more lucid from you Polescum, thanks.

S'alright, however, it's Prolescum - salt of the earth, man amongst men.

You may of course pontificate about what you interpret as pontification as much as you like, and you may even dismiss points of view other than your own as pseud on that basis

That's not the basis for that view. I read more than I post.

but you cannot deny that the definition of delusion and the definition of religious belief do coincide on all the basics, which is essentially the theme of the thread (duh!).

I don't deny it at all, and at no point did I (it is precisely this reason that I entered this conversation); their similarity is such that I can't think of many reasons for hairs being split.

I'm not sure what your inference regarding democracy is, or why whatever it is within that inference then makes me a scumbag, though I would regard you as being rather rash in that particular judgement too, and wonder if such a propensity to be gratuitously offensive is a proof of the limits of your intellect or simply just bad manners. Anyway, that's your problem (thankfully).

Gratuities are free. Don't feel you have to take them home with you.

You appear to suggest that if, in a democracy, a majority suffer from a common delusion then that's perfectly ok then.

Suffer by whose standard? Yours? Are you saying that the majority (the religious) are all delusional? Memeticemetic, take note. In fact, read all this guy's posts.

I am suggesting that belief is generally more akin to hope than delusion (as I understand it, being an atheist from birth), rather than tarring literally billions of people with an unqualified mental illness brush as you seem to be doing. Person A and Person B are both ill for the same reasons; their religion (or belief system) doesn't matter a jot.

Majority rules and all that. You then suppose that the reaction of the non-delusional minority must be either to "cower in a basement" or simply accept that a delusional majority exists and take what's coming to them on that basis.

Lol, I like you.

You said: This makes the sufferers of that particular delusion[religion] far more of a potential threat in social terms, in my view, to which I respond with a question related specifically to the quote (scroll up if you need to read it again).
Your answer was to strawman me and avoid answering. You're like chips sans the vinegar - very tasty.

When you realise the extreme limitations you impose on yourself by restricting yourself to such few and unimaginative options, or by then inferring that all others should do the same, and especially through adopting an intimidatory attitude against anyone who might disagree with such a defeatist and basically dumb concept as the one you seem happy to represent

The one you've misconstrued? Oh, okay. :lol:

then maybe any future lucidity might lead to actual debate rather than rancorous and rude statements of opinion badly expressed.

This isn't a debate, it's a conversation. This might be worth pondering.

You seem however to be quite happy to settle for less at least on the basis of your intervention in this thread.

Your observation skills aren't as keen as you think they are.

I am sure you will find plenty of others to engage in that level of communication with - they also appear to be a rather unfortunate majority. But not with me.

:lol:

------------------------------

How is it dehumanising to compare religious belief to insanity?

I'll leave you to figure that out yourself, you're a clever boy.

Unless you posit that people with mental issues are sub-human.

:lol:

I was making no such claim. I was merely drawing comparisons between the two things.

See the rest of my post for a response to this.

 

[Nordmann]

Are you saying that the majority (the religious) are all delusional?

Yes.

Are you saying that the definition of delusion doesn't fit religious belief rather well? If you don't believe it does, then your antipathy to my comments and my stance is understandable. If you do then I really can't see what you're objecting to, and nor do I understand your eagerness to denegrate rather than "converse" (as you wish to term it) except that you deem it a justified reaction to anyone whose opinion does not accord with your own. My powers of observation may be as poor as you suggest but they are still sufficient to spot comment designed to insult rather than to inform or contribute to a conversation.

Whether delusion is necessarily an indicator of insanity in the case of an individual is a moot point, and not a claim I have ever made. That its general acceptance within a society, in its religious form or otherwise, is an indicator of that society's attitude to mental health is less moot and worth scrutiny.

Your point regarding religion being about "hope" rather than delusion seems to be addressing a false dichotomy. "Hope" can itself be a factor in the individual's susceptibility to delusion and therefore a tool which can be exploited in promoting any particular delusion which proposes to address this. It is therefore not an alternative, and especially not the basis of an alternative definition of religion or its causes. Not one that makes sense anyway.

You're like chips sans the vinegar - very tasty.

An unwarranted (and actually insensible) personal comment. Is this your level?

Ok, then. If it is the level at which you want to hold your "conversations" then I humbly suggest you are neither "debating" nor "conversing".

"Fora" ?? You seem to have difficulties with the concept of a forum in more ways than one.

 

[Memeticemetic]

Oh, I've been following along quite closely Prole, my good man. Much to my chagrin, I now see precisely what spawned the "Oh, for fuck's sake" to begin with. Quite prophetic of you, I must say. Or perhaps you've just traveled this particular road far more often than myself.

 

[Prolescum]

Are you saying that the majority (the religious) are all delusional?

Yes.

Are you saying that the definition of delusion doesn't fit religious belief rather well?

but you cannot deny that the definition of delusion and the definition of religious belief do coincide on all the basics, which is essentially the theme of the thread (duh!).

I don't deny it at all, and at no point did I (it is precisely this reason that I entered this conversation); their similarity is such that I can't think of many reasons for hairs being split.

Are you being funny on purpose?

If you don't believe it does then your antipathy to my comments and my stance is understandable. If you do then I really can't see what you're objecting to

Then go back to the top and start again. I've already gone over this.

and nor do I understand your eagerness to denegrate rather than "converse" (as you wish to term it) except that you deem it a justified reaction to anyone whose opinion does not accord with your own.

Just because my idioms aren't familiar to you does not mean my words are devoid of content. You seem fixated on my vernacular instead of the conversation; don't think I haven't noticed what you haven't responded to.

My powers of observation may be as poor as you suggest but they are still sufficient to spot comment designed to insult rather than to inform or contribute to a conversation.

Very poor in that case. I don't pussy-foot around on the off-chance that someone is taken aback, and I certainly won't restrain myself to cater for the sensibilities of some random person on the internet.

Whether delusion is necessarily an indicator of insanity in the case of an individual is a moot point, and not a claim I have ever made. That its general acceptance within a society, in its religious form or otherwise, is an indicator of that society's attitude to mental health is less moot and worth scrutiny.

Your point regarding religion being about "hope" rather than delusion seems to be addressing a false dichotomy. "Hope" can itself be a factor in the individual's susceptibility to delusion and therefore a tool which can be exploited in promoting any particular delusion which proposes to address this. It is therefore not an alternative, and especially not the basis of an alternative definition of religion or its causes. Not one that makes sense anyway.

I meant to write a hope, I said generally akin, and I don't think I mentioned insanity. Did you even bother to read it or just rush out a retort hoping to score? What were you saying about the level of conversation you're above again?

I can think of an appropriate parable if you'd like, it was written by Luke and involves wood.

You're like chips sans the vinegar - very tasty.

An unwarranted (and actually insensible) personal comment. Is this your level?

It's a cultural idiom, ignore it if it perplexes you.

Ok, then. If it is the level at which you want to hold your "conversations" then I humbly suggest you are neither "debating" nor "conversing".

Lol, you're not humble by any stretch.

"Fora" ?? You seem to have difficulties with the concept of a forum in more ways than one.

It may seem that way if your dictionary is pocket-sized. Is this debating or conversing?

Oh, I've been following along quite closely Prole, my good man. Much to my chagrin, I now see precisely what spawned the "Oh, for fuck's sake" to begin with. Quite prophetic of you, I must say. Or perhaps you've just traveled this particular road far more often than myself.

Alas, yes. It's all in good fun, though.

 

[FaithlessThinker]

Fora vs Forums ,« Pain in the English

According to the Oxford English Dictionary...

forum n. (pl. forums) 1) a meeting or medium for an exchange of views. 2) (pl. fora) (in an ancient Roman city) a public square or marketplace used for judicial and other business. Origin ME: from Latin, lit. what is out of doors.

I prefer not to be an ancient Roman