The article linked below is probably one of the best explanations I have read for why religion is not a delusion.

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

"Calling religion delusional has become an increasingly popular strategy for its critics. To my ear, there's more to this than just a benign slight -- there's at least the hint of the pathological. Religion can be delusional, but to think it inherently so is to misunderstand both religion and delusion.

Having spent my entire professional career around psychologists, I'm all too aware of how clinicians cringe when diagnostic terms get tossed about willy-nilly. So let's begin with what the latest APA Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM IV-TR, p. 821) says about delusion:

A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture (e.g., it is not an article of religious faith).

Note that the manual almost gives religion a free pass on the delusion issue, which for some might end the discussion right there. But let's assume that this is too generous and push ahead anyway."

Continued

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-j-rossano/why-religion-is-emnotem-d_b_611148.html

Religion therefore contains a host of properties that actually militate against pathological delusion: (1) its general notions and practices are not obviously contradicted by evidence,

"obviously contradicted by evidence"? Really? What long term religion hasn't had to reinvent themselves as since has proven past claims false?

(2) it requires very little mental effort to sustain most religious notions, and

It takes little mental effort to sustain most religious notions? Yeah, that is why so many religious people go to church every Sunday to have those notions reinforce, so many read the scriptures...

(3) it encourages community integration which promotes healthy psychological functioning.

Um, actually evidence is coming out that religion may separates communities encouraging an us against them attitude when it comes to different ideas. http://uscnews.usc.edu/university/study_links_religion_and_racism.html

I guess if the DSM defines delusion in that way, I'm not going to pit my untrained reasoning against it. However, I don't think I'm being "pathological" for thinking religion is a delusion. I was being sincere when said in another thread that religion sounds to me very much like (the layman's definition of) a delusion: "A delusion is a false belief held with absolute conviction despite superior evidence." I wasn't trying to be hateful -- that's how it really seems to me.

The article asserts that religion isn't a delusion, but then describes exactly what I'm dealing with from Mormon family members and Christian evangelicals. So, it sounds to me as if the DSM definition is carefully worded to avoid confrontation with religious believers who represent a large part of the population.

I would agree though if religion to most people means a tradition that they participate in but don't really believe in. That's how my cousins are in their Roman Catholic faith, but I don't know very many people who are like that these days.

and see if it describes delusion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3E0Bqa97tUI

Calling believers "delusional" is abusive because it intends to convey the shame of a mental illness without being responsible to the medical facts the word is actually supposed to convey. At a point it loses scientific or medical meaning and is simply rhetoric and insult. It is akin to the word "retarded" once having a specifically medical use to one now that is simply an insult. It doesn't speak well for the rationality many atheists claim for themselves.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/03/2011 10:38AM by robertb.

When I say "delusional" I certainly don't mean the DSM definition. But when people look something right in the face and deny it, how else can I describe their behavior but to say that they are deluded? The DSM definition takes away my ability to describe the situation by appropriating the language I can use. Yes, I do mean to convey shame on believers by calling them delusional, but no I don't mean to say that they are mentally ill. Perhaps the word "delusional" has become a slur though, and I need to find a synonym.

It's tempting to shame people we are angry with. I don't think it is particularly effective in changing their minds unless you both have a sufficiently shared set of values and priorities. Shaming people often just closes them off. Perhaps a more descriptive and emotional neutral term?

The clinical one and the general one. The DSM useage is clinical, very narrowly so.

When I state that Neville Chamberlin, for instance, was delusional, I would not be using the DSM definition. But was he? Hell, yes.

Remember also that ALL of us have delusions of one sort or another. None of us is infallible, especially me.

The problem with religion is that is so disconnected from reality checks that it allows, even encourages, behavior which can be described in both the clinical and general sense, as "delusional". The irony of religionists trying to deny this was on display at Brian David Mitchell's trial, where Mitchell's claims were no more weird or scandalous than those of Joseph Smith--but thanks to an established religion, Smith gets a pass as a prophet, but Mitchell becomes just a mentally ill pervert.

My impression is that with regard to religious believers, some of the atheists on this board *have* been using the word delusional in the clinical sense.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/03/2011 10:56AM by summer.

By pairing it with accusations of mental illness, yes they have. In my opinion, it is an abusive and irresponsible use of language. In addition they ignore the evidence that, as a whole, religion is not a mental illness nor is belief delusional. To insist on it while ignoring evidence is propaganda.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/03/2011 12:14PM by robertb.

Pfffft. Somebody's playing politics with pathology, and that is NOT good science.

RAG Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pfffft. Somebody's playing politics with
> pathology, and that is NOT good science.

I agree. Atheists accusing believers of mental illness is not good science.

because they get to hide their lies or DELUSIONS under religious language, traditions and institutions.

Looks like they fooled you, huh?

Plainly speaking, if you believe differently than others around you, you are considered delusional...OR... you are the hero of a thousand faces who travels into the nether and brings back a new "truth" to the society and becomes one of the gods, or legendary, starting a new religion like Mohammed or Joseph Smith.

As soon as others around you begin believing in the Spider God and her awesome powers, it stops being a delusion.

We saw this come into play recently during the trial of Brian David Mitchell. Always sensitive to the delusions, er--beliefs, of LDS Utahns and the overbearing stature of the Lord's true attorneys, back room discussions were held over this very knotty problem:

How could Mitchell be insane because God speaks to him when his society insists monthly that God still speaks to "his people" through a living prophet? He thinks he's the right prophet--just like Joseph Smith did.

And demonstrable truth? How about the Book of Abraham? Or the Mark Hoffmann debacle? What more clear demonstrable proof do you have that 1) Joseph Smith was a con man, and 2) Current prophets have absolutely no powers of discernment whatsoever.

Yet Mormons continue to believe and are NOT considered insane because those around them believe as well.

Anagrammy

Neither Mark Hoffman nor the LDS authorities were delusional. Hoffman was a criminal and the general authorities make untrue claims about their powers. GBH in his interview with Mike Wallace was very aware of how others might think of him and the church when he said, "We are not weird." That itself demonstrated a level of awareness that someone who truly suffers with a delusion does not have. Just because something is strange to us or we dislike it does not make it a delusion.

anagrammy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Plainly speaking, if you believe differently than
> others around you, you are considered
> delusional...

I have a problem with that definition. If everyone around me believes fervently in a falsehood, does that make me delusional for not believing in it too? I think the definition is a dance around the problem of a large number of people believing in something that isn't true. Perhaps we could say that the majority believing makes it a default position and it's laziness and not delusion that's keeping people from accepting reality. But that's not what I'm seeing. Even when confronted with evidence of the falsehood, believers tend to shut it out so they can keep on believing in the falsehood. That to me says delusion.

Mak, it isn't only a matter of *belief*; it is also a question of *function.* You can hold false beliefs but if you function well enough, you are not, clinically speaking, suffering from a mental illness.

"As with any psychological disorder, *functional impairment is key.* Perfectly normal people hold all kinds of beliefs based on partial or equivocal evidence -- the vagaries of human life make this unavoidable. So the standard for determining whether or not religious beliefs are delusional is the same as that required for any belief: is the belief contradicted by so much obvious and convincing evidence that in order to maintain it the believer becomes functionally compromised, producing suffering for themselves and those around them?" [emphasis mine]

I think it is a Mormon holdover in our thinking to be so stuck on judging goodness or wellness by *belief.*



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/03/2011 10:42AM by robertb.

I think of that poor little girl who was born with extra limbs in India. People would come from miles around to see her, or just stand near her house and pray, because they believed she was the reincarnation of the Goddess Lacshmi (many armed woman sitting cross-legged).

True? The very poor family, which was being supported by the donations of the devoted,loved her enough to give up a source of income in favor of a normal life for their daughter. Not an inconsiderable sacrifice given the value of women in that country. An American doctor heard of the malformed toddler and offered free surgery.

The village had also been living off the sales to tourists of trinkets, food, etc, and were so outraged that the family chose to eliminate this cash cow from their economy that they threatened the parents. After the surgery, the family had to move 500 miles away and live under assumed names.

As we can testify, those who exploit religious beliefs can turn unbelievably cruel when their exploitation is ended by someone pointing to reality.

Anagrammy



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/03/2011 10:48AM by anagrammy.

Calling religion a delusion is just as purposeless as attacking people for thinking it IS a delusion. Religion works for some people; not for others. Even Jesus (and I'm paraphrasing, here, but this comes from the Book of Matthew) said, essentially, that the rules are for getting you where you need to go. To the extent that they don't, toss 'em out.

I still self-identify as Christian; my husband does not. He's a happy atheist. Neither he nor I are deluded, and neither he nor I have the upper hand when it comes to morality. He's made the adult choice to follow the path that's right for him, and I've done the same thing for myself.

was performing miracles and the Son of God?

Was he delusional?
Were his contemporary believers delusional?

Does that say anything about his 1 billion believers today?

...it's about reality, which is often very unpopular.

but in robertb's argument, it is a popularity contest. If you can get enough people to buy into your unreality, it's not delusional.

It's all about consensus. A group of people can agree to anything...and that was the point of the "Emperor's New Clothes" fable. In that kingdom, those who saw the naked emperor were not only 'delusional' but a threat to the state and the society.

Actually, lulu, it is not simply *my* argument. Is the DSM-IV's argument, half of which you leave out, by the way. The other half of the argument is the issue of functional impairment. If you are seriously going to call something a mental illness, then it should met the criteria and the key criterion for all mental illness is functionality. I think the fixation on belief is a holdover of Mormon thinking. It also conveniently allows some shirking of responsibility.

And if these people were, is it possible that Paul of New Testament fame was also delusional?

The second is functionality. In other words, beliefs may be not factual or strange but if they don't significantly impair function, the person does not meet the criteria for a delusional disorder.

"Delusions of persecution and grandeur are two of the more common forms among those requiring psychiatric care. So if I believe I'm the king of England despite considerable evidence otherwise ("Where are my scepter and my subjects? Good God, what I am doing in South Louisiana?"), then there may be psychological trouble brewing. Maintaining my belief very likely requires convoluted explanations for why the world seems organized such that my assertions of royalty are contradicted at every turn. The mental gymnastics exact a toll, and herein lies a second critical aspect of pathological delusion: the person's ability to function effectively in the world is compromised. Delusional individuals are often highly distressed, as are those around them.

As with any psychological disorder, functional impairment is key. Perfectly normal people hold all kinds of beliefs based on partial or equivocal evidence -- the vagaries of human life make this unavoidable. So the standard for determining whether or not religious beliefs are delusional is the same as that required for any belief: is the belief contradicted by so much obvious and convincing evidence that in order to maintain it the believer becomes functionally compromised, producing suffering for themselves and those around them? In general the answer here is no, for a number of reasons."

functional impaired?

I hear that crucifiction thing is a Son of a Bitch.

From the DSM definition I would say that Joseph Smith was delusional. The Church has morphed into the corporation that it is because the leaders are no longer delusional--they are indoctrinated.

Back in JS's day you could become a GA within a few months after being baptized. These days that is impossible. It takes decades of indoctrination (usually from birth) to qualify for GA status.

Thank you, Robert, for bring some actual knowledge to this subject. Wonder where some of our radical atheists got their dgrees is psychology?