-DM-

[Unfortunately, I have lost the source information for what follows. It is not my own.]

---------

Reality, Insanity and Religion

When two people have observed the same event they may honestly believe that two different things have taken place. Each observer has made his own interpretation of what actually took place. Social scientists might even talk about two "realities." While this relativism may be valid in purely subjective matters, in the objective world of physical objects there is only one reality.

If two or more people have incompatible beliefs, it is impossible for more than one to be correct. One interpretation may, in fact, be mainly fantasy, and it is never correct to label this fantasy "reality." Even if society as a whole believes a fantasy, it is still a fantasy.

Insanity can be defined as being out of touch with reality. Holding beliefs that are in opposition to reality is indicative of insanity. The degree of insanity may be measured by the number of fantasies which are held to be true, the degree to which they are believed, and the extent to which they deviate from the nature of the real world.

If a person believes the Earth is less than 10,000 years old (as some Christian fundamentalists do and as the Bible seems to indicate), and if at the same time this person is familiar with objective measurements which show the Earth to be several billion years old, he is harboring a fantasy which—to some extent—is insanity. If a person sees the Virgin Mary in a bush but a camera finds nothing objectively visible, then the person making the claim is probably generating this vision in his mind, in which case he is suffering, to some extent, an insanity.

The manifestations of religious belief may be simple illusions which seemingly offer harmless comfort (visions, voices, belief in the unseen, belief in immortality); they may precipitate behavior which is foolish and inappropriate (faith overriding reason, self-denial, faith healing, monasticism, self-righteousness); or they may be violent delusions which motivate any number of reprehensible actions (hatred, inquisitions, murder, religious crusades, wars).

A true Christian displays many behavioral characteristics which are questionable at best, and symptomatic of a well-entrenched insanity at worst.

---------

--Don--

Dr Rick

If psychologists went around labeling the majority of people unfit to live in society on the basis of a popularly held belief they would be ostracized and possibly even locked-up themselves. Add to that the reality that the majority of psychologists are theists, and the improbability of religion being recognized or even seriously questioned as a possible mental disorder increases even more.

Dr Rick

Good God man, NO; load the harpoon...

case

Ok, I had no idea where to post this, but hey, what the heck, why not here? I work part-time at a Borders bookstore. I saw the numbers for shink last year (how much merchandise gets shoplifted), and, low and behold, the area with the highest percent was religion, at 21%. Hmm...

Waning Moon Conrad

I wouldn't call it mad but I'd definitely call it stupid.

I work in a psychiatric hospital with some theists, fundamentalist Christians in fact. They're not mad, but they are definitely stupid at some levels as well as creepily insipid.
Having a medical degree does not constitute innoculation against this particular type of stupidity either.

You need to work with some genuinely mad people. You need to medicate, seclude, talk to, smoke with, sit with and joke with some genuinely, barking mad nutters. You will then be disabused of your lay opinion.
Theism as such is not a psychosis.

Christianity as such can on the odd occassion be sort of okay too. My experience has been that if someone has Father or Reverend in front of their name (Catholic or Anglican and hence educated) then you can probably have a decent conversation. If they've got Pastor in front of their name, they're probably a halfwit and a waste of good piss if they're on fire.

Seeker196

"You can't produce benificial social effects on a population of mentally ill people."

I'm not sure what you mean here, but People's Temple had many positive and even utopian elements to it.

My answer to why psychology does not consider religion a disorder is that psychology is science by headcount. That is a simplification, of course, but it's what it boils down to.

Why is deviation from a socially accepatable norm as opposed to beliefs without and in contradiction to evidence more important for determining a disorder?

If everyone wrapped their heads in tinfoil to prevent alien mind control, would that somehow make it less insane?

I do not consider theism a psychosis since it does not fit the diagnostic profile for the psychotic disorders, but I DO consider it a personality disorder (Delusional Disorder).

LOL I loved the Pastor comment...they DO seem more nutty than usual...

Koyaanisqatsi

Waning Moon--

"A waste of good piss if they're on fire."

By far my all time favorite rejoinder, sir! I hope you don't mind if I steal it.

As to your comments (and everyone else's beside Meta's of course), as I recall from my psych. minor courses at Boston University (and a quick clarification from Websters), psychosis is "a fundamental mental derangement (as schizophrenia) characterized by defective or lost contact with reality."

Now, obviously on a clinical level, there is much more to it and as this definition tells us, psychosis is considered fundamentally "hard-wired," (though psychologists might argue such a thing), so perhaps we're somewhere between the DSM-IV rating Seeker gave us of "Delusional Disorder" and "Psychosis" (a fundamental derangement)?

As most in here, I'm sure, know, psychology was originally at odds with cults (even though it could be argued that priests were the first psychologists) and then nothing. Is it that, as Meta indirectly tells us, the operant conditioning of, especially, christian cult slave mentality serves America's social needs in an Orwellian/Huxleyian sense, so the psychiatric community doesn't care, or is it as others have alluded to, that majority rules?

One of my Aunts had a mental breakdown about six years ago wherein she was convinced that she could see the "devil" (a nonexistent fictional creature), who caused her to want to hurt herself and others. Her "treatment" was a series of psychotropic drugs for two years and then when the hallucinations eventually subsided, nothing else. No long term psychiatric care was even mentioned, let alone mandatory and I asked my Uncle why not, and his answer was (and I quote), "because the devil no longer has any hold over her."

Now, granted I wasn't able to speak to her psychiatrist (or really delve into it as much as I wanted to with my Uncle), but that experience has forever effected their whole immediate family and our extended family. Since we're all primarily Wasp’s, however, no one talks about it and to this day both my Aunt and my Uncle are absolutely convinced (and became born again christians as a result) that the devil literally exists and terrorized her, which means that she isn't cured in any way and that she lives in a constant state of denial, fear and the desperate death-grip on her delusions as a means for survival.

Now, some people (Meta, I'm sure) would say that means her theism is a "valid stabilizer for her mental health," when the reality is that her childhood indoctrination clearly surfaced during some sort of psychotic episode, wherein the "devil" was what her mind concocted as something that was in control of her (and no, there was no pea soup or mysterious moving beds; more like a screaming fit alternating with deathly quiet rocking back and forth kind of thing).

That's not so disturbing to me, believe it or not, because it's understandable to some degree. What's more disturbing is what happened as a result of this psychotic break and how my Aunt and Uncle (and their family) have become Stepford People, with a thin veneer of instability mixed with zombie-like catatonia in their eyes whenever you talk to them about anything that isn't Jesus related. It's not just "spooky," it's what I call clinically creepy, yet whenever I bring up the idea that perhaps they both need intense psychiatric care to rid them of the delusions of christianity, I'm the one looked at like I'm the devil.

So, as you can see, this question is far more personal to me than I originally let on.

So, back on topic. Perhaps we need to break down the levels of belief, so that we can weed out the merely indoctrinated (like most of us were) and the clinically creepy (like my born again Aunt and Uncle), and discuss whether or not there is some sort of fundamental derangement in some, while in others it is more "collateral damage" to these fundamentally deranged individuals?

hezekiah jones

Sorry this is off topic, but, I was just thinking. Further to Metacrock's absurd quotation about the "government" (unlike spiritual "mentors") not being in a position to impart "straight talk" to defendants. You have to wonder if Metacrock even reads the gibberish he's copying and pasting.

I suggest Metacrock extract himself from his weighty, academic tomes some time, and pay a visit to the county courthouse. If he times it right, he can take in either a sentencing hearing, the prosecution's closing argument, or, better yet, the prosecution's sentencing argument, preferably with respect to a violent, or especially, sexually violent, offender.

Anyone that would seriously suggest that the "government" is not in a position to impart "straight talk" to offenders clearly needs their own special entry in the DSM-IV.

As for the religion aspect, I've lost count of how many times my wife (a state prosecutor) has told me tales of allegedly recalcitrant defendants invoking Jesus and the Bible as a means of attempting to gain some measure of "mercy" from the court. In fact, it is highly unusual for offenders (and especially sexually violent offenders, pedophiles and the like - my wife's "speciality") to express any remorse or concern towards the victim. Rather, they are more often concerned with making a fatuous public display of their own "conversion," and so-called deeply held spiritual beliefs.

Anyone who has ever seen one of these performances will know what I'm talking about. I've seen quite a few, and it's enough to make you puke at the hypocrisy, a hypocrisy that the Manhattan Institute apparently desires to institutionalize with the force of legislation.

This state now has "truth in sentencing laws," which kicked in more than a year ago. That is, when you're sentenced to 20 years, you serve 20 years. And guess what? Based on an admittedly informal survey of the local defense bar, the inmates just aren't flocking after Jesus like they used to. Why not? Because no amount of phony religiosity is going to gain them early release, that's why, so they don't even bother anymore. So what purpose was it serving prior to truth in sentencing? It was a scam, obviously.

I am not putting this forth as ironclad social science research, simply some informal, admittedly anecdotal observations. But to me they certainly speak to the farcical nature of "jailhouse christianity."

Bookman

I'm going to take advantage of your moderate tone to wade in here. Hopefully it will last.

Clearly, Meta's diversion was nonsense and has been dealt with appropriately. Well done.

Also, it seems clear that in your Aunt's case (and you have my sympathy, sir) the acceptance of bizarre beliefs was a barrier to her ability to have a genuine mental illness recognized and treated appropriately.

That being said, I don't believe that your argument equating ordinary levels of belief with psychosis can be made to hold water. To make an extreme case, you would assert that someone who believes in a god that created the universe (poof!) is inherently out of touch with reality. But is that such a given? A full-blown diagnostic definition of psychosis is probably beyond the scope of the thread, but your most recent quote seems relevant to the discussion:

I know its a bizarre belief and that it contradicts what we know scientifically about the universe, but in what way does the belief that goddidit contradict the perceptory (if that's even a word) experience of the average person? How does that belief cause defects in their interactions with the world?

Bookman

Koyaanisqatsi

Good question, Book and one I'm hoping we can discuss from a psychiatric standpoint, with the given caveat that all here so far (all but Mad Kally, and possibly Seeker, that is) seem to be armchair psychs. I only minored in it (albeit at Boston University, which has one of the better psychology departments) with an emphasis on developmental psych, so it's largely speculation time from my end. Did you get that Meta?

Anyway, like my cousins, there is indeed a sustained delusional state associated with theism that I wonder if it's merely indoctrinated and we all were just somehow "immune" to it, or if there is some sort of fundamental hard-wiring that the indoctrination plays upon? I don't know, that's why I've asked this question.

One thing is clear and people like Meta are a perfect example of what I'm talking about. We've all experienced it here and in our lives and the brick wall smiley illustrates it perfectly. It's as if there is a triggered lock down of the mind that allows the body to function relatively normally in society, but when it comes to the irrational elements of theism, every other cognitive process is shut down. It seems too complex (and comfortable) to simply call "brainwashing" or my favorite, "cult programming," since it is so endemic.

Indeed, it's this same notion that cult members laud as evidence that their beliefs are correct in a post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy orgy.

If it isn't somewhere between "Delusional Disorder" and full on "Psychosis," then where is it and, again, why isn't it being treated in the same way a psychologist would treat someone who claims they hear voices or hallucinate (such as my Aunt)? Why wouldn't psychologists--beside peer pressure--actively seek to cure people of these delusions just as they would any other delusional state?

Look at Meta. He goes to such elaborate, almost OCD levels to conflate and confuse the issues and build his straw men as if terrified that some part of him would recognize the logic and see that what he's been arguing is as evidently false as we all keep pointing out to him. Is his behavior clinically delusional?

I often go to the same lengths in my deconstructions. Are we simply flipsides of the same coin?

The key to it all, IMO, is the dealing with "reality" aspect. Meta is the first one to start jumping up and down on the solipsist fallacy whenever this is raised (he's thinking it now, I guarantee it, if he's still around), but the primary difference between atheists and theists is that we're dealing with what is and they're dealing with what they want it to be, i.e., a delusional state, so much so that they will invoke any argument in order to keep the wheels spinning so that no conclusions are ever reached or ever can be reached.

The "who has the burden of proof" loop is a good example. The burden of proof is known. Only the claimant has the burden of proof. Yet the theists around repeatedly attempt to argue that this isn't the case or that atheists are also claimants, when all of that completely misses the point, which is even if anybody else is making a claim, the theist is also making a claim and must provide evidence for it, regardless of anyone else's alleged claims. So, the argument is never answered and the theist never provides evidence, because they are either too brainwashed to respond in any other mode than "spin," or somehow hard-wired and are therefore fundamentally incapable of seeing it, or something in between those two that the psychiatric community hasn't explored.

So, again, the question is more to the hard wiring and whether or not something is "triggered" by fantasy wish-fulfillment inculcation or if it's all simply cult programming? We all survived our cult indoctrination, but people like my Aunt and Uncle have not and aren't even capable of seeing it for what it is in much the same way that a traumatized/abused child cannot (or will not) see what happened to them; as if the mind won't allow the consciousness to see "what is" because the truth is too overpowering.

Obviously I'm exploding these examples to some degree for the sake of making a point, but we've all had similar experiences with people (Mad Kally must directly) who are literally insane with theism and it is from this psychiatric perspective that I made this post and asked the question.