Religion
Related: About this forumFaith and delusions
Faith or delusion? At the crossroads of religion and psychosis.
Pierre JM.
Author information
Abstract
In clinical practice, no clear guidelines exist to distinguish between "normal" religious beliefs and "pathological" religious delusions. Historically, psychiatrists such as Freud have suggested that all religious beliefs are delusional, while the current DSM-IV definition of delusion exempts religious doctrine from pathology altogether. From an individual standpoint, a dimensional approach to delusional thinking (emphasizing conviction, preoccupation, and extension rather than content) may be useful in examining what is and is not pathological. When beliefs are shared by others, the idiosyncratic can become normalized. Therefore, recognition of social dynamics and the possibility of entire delusional subcultures is necessary in the assessment of group beliefs. Religious beliefs and delusions alike can arise from neurologic lesions and anomalous experiences, suggesting that at least some religious beliefs can be pathological. Religious beliefs exist outside of the scientific domain; therefore they can be easily labeled delusional from a rational perspective. However, a religious belief's dimensional characteristics, its cultural influences, and its impact on functioning may be more important considerations in clinical practice.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15990520
DSM-IV-TR offers no specific guidelines for assessing DRC vs nondelusional religious beliefs.11 There is risk of pathologizing religious beliefs when listening to content alone.11-15 Instead, focus on the conviction, pervasiveness,2 uniqueness or bizarreness, and associated emotional distress of the delusion to the patient (Table 1).2,12,16-18
In the context of the patient’s spiritual history, deviations from conventional religious beliefs and practices are important factors in determining whether a religious belief is authentic or delusional. Involving family members and/or spiritual care professionals (eg, chaplains and clergy) can be especially helpful when making this differentiation.16,17 In the hospital, chaplains often are familiar with a variety of faith traditions and may provide important insight into the patient’s beliefs. In the community, clergy members from the patient’s faith also may provide valuable perspective.
http://www.currentpsychiatry.com/topics/schizophrenia-other-psychotic-disorders/article/how-to-care-for-patients-who-have-delusions-with-religious-content/c4d09baf5dd83ef913af3d6794e0d3b9.html
So have a look at Peter’s book (he gave a terrific talk on it in June at TAM). What I wanted to post, beyond this recommendation, was something in the book that I didn’t know. The DSM of psychiatry, explained in the excerpt below, defines delusions in such a way that religion is really one of them. But then it exempts religion from the psychiatric diagnosis of “delusion” because it is widely held. Here’s an excerpt from Peter’s book, which I post with his permission (the bolding is Peter’s, but I would have bolded it, too!):
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA), is the single most important text used by clinicians. It is the diagnostic rulebook. Currently, the DSM grants religious delusions an exemption from classification as a mental illness. The following is the DSM-IV’s definition of 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). When a false belief involves a value judgment, it is regarded as a delusion only when the judgment is so extreme as to defy credibility. Delusional conviction occurs on a continuum and can sometimes be inferred from an individual’s behavior. It is often difficult to distinguish between a delusion and an overvalued idea (in which case the individual has an unreasonable belief or idea but does not hold it as firmly as is the case with a delusion)” (2000, p. 765).
Again, religion gets a pass in society. Why should someone’s belief be a delusion only if it’s held by a minority of people? In the important respect of being “an incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained,” and one that “defies credibility,” religion is a delusion. But note how religious faith is specifically exempted. Further, many individuals’ religious behaviors do indicate a delusional conviction (falling on one’s knees and talking to an imaginary friend, eating wafers, bowing toward Mecca five times a day, and so on).
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/08/29/the-bible-of-psychiatric-diagnosis-exempts-religion-from-delusions-even-though-it-is-one/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)How much of that is due to scientific politics and how much is based on solid empiricism is another matter.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)By the way? I'm running around using your Journal of Psychiatric Practice quote around DU right now.
Thanks millions!
So if the DSM and APA and so forth will not criticize religions in general language? At least one major Psychological subfield - Psychiatry; Freud's successors - WILL do it.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)for no other reason than "enough" people share it.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)That does sort of tip your hand a bit.
Bryant
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)Last edited Wed Mar 5, 2014, 03:15 PM - Edit history (1)
Why indeed, not take the high road at times? Reason, as well as interventionism.
Keep quoting the relevant medical and psychological journals. The psychological sub-branch of "Psychiatry," based on Freud, appears to be especially critical.
On a related important matter? To be sure, arguing that ALL of religion is delusional, is difficult. It is easier to find specific limited wrongs; and many will agree to them. Many liberals for example will agree that Fundamentalism, liberalism, Biblicism, contains flaws. However? I've found that when arguing with people that religion contains many bad things, often they will agree; but they will assume that you are talking about everybody ELSE'S religion.
So finally, just noting individual problems doesn't quite work; everybody assumes or asserts that their OWN religion at least, gets a pass. Especially liberals will allow criticisms of Fundamentalist belief ... but then assume that their own spiritual beliefs are immune to criticism. So critics need to look at a very wide range of problems in religions. And possibly for "Religion" itself.
Unfortunately too, religious interest groups have some power in our "free" society; even over the APA In fact? I seem to remember a few cases where the Manual seemed to criticize much religion ... and the churches squawked. Then they deliberately set about getting the Manual to change. Which it often does.
Organized, corrupt religion, has an immense amount of power. Even to some extent, in the scientific community. That is why most scientists and religionists, try to rigidly compartmentalize, split, science and religion. To just say that each may be right, in its own separate sphere. But this compartmentalization results in a kind of split personality, I suggest.
In case anyone argues with the obvious reading? Here's my detailed one-page analysis of the article abstract. Showing that indeed, a broad criticism of religion, as "delusion," is intended by the author:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=115419
