Hey Big NeverMor,

I followed you all the way with the "let's discuss the definition." I've noticed that trying to ask the questions here sometimes doesn't work with a certain crowd. You can answer questions, but you can't ask and expect an answer. Also, things tend to trend toward bright line distinctions - its easier to make a point that way, I suppose. And for purposes of this board, the bright line approach makes sense since many people don't really get a lot out of equivocating.

Anyways, I understood you were talking about the definition being used and I, like you, saw everyone avoid your point. It does make it tough to have a conversation.

It wasn't skirted. The point is that there are several definitions of delusion, such as the most common being:

"A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness: delusions of persecution."

This says "especially as" a symptom of mental illness, but not limited to a symptom of mental illness.

So bignevermo uses the definition the American Psychological Association uses of delusion, which does not include religion.

The point I made is that the American Psychological Association has a severe conflict of interest which compels them to exclude religion from their definition of delusion for obvious reasons.

That's why subjective definitions are not indicative of reality. It's the same situation we have with the word atheism. It literally means a-theism, or NOT theism. But theists define it as the claim that no gods exist which is not the case.

So everyone is trying to point out that just because a word is defined a certain way doesn't necessarily make it so. You have to make empirical observations about reality, and in reality people who believe in invisible beings for which no evidence exist are deluded.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/06/2011 02:37PM by kolobian.

The point I made is that the American Psychological Association has a severe conflict of interest which compels them to exclude religion from their definition of delusion for obvious reasons

but you have nothing to back it up. just something that you think is logical...

my actual point of the whole matter comes to this: Steve Benson claimed ..thru clinical use of his sources.. that religion is delusional...and so we should use the clinical definition that is current for today.
and it wasnt just the
American Psychological Association
it was also the definition of the
America psychiatric Association
and the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill (NAMI)
i mean if you dont want to use those definitions i suggest you dont use clinical data to discuss the issue... then i wont have any problem with what you say!

and some would posit that there are evidences for a higher power. just not me though!!

here at least from nami:
to accomplish our promise to build better lives, NAMI will continue to provide education, support and advocacy programs and services that benefit individuals and families affected by mental illness in communities across the country.
that does not seem like a for profit drive to me...at least at a cursory glance. just sayin



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/06/2011 02:49PM by bignevermo.

Ok, so perhaps we're talking past each other.

Do you at least agree that religious beliefs are a delusion as defined by my above-cited definition? (we're speaking only of this definition)

although i may not use it... yeah.. i can see how some people would!
to some people ..if you cant prove something scientifically...
it does not exist.
thanks Kolobian... but...you arent being like your old name!! :)
i kinda like that... although everyone can be snarky from time to time! :)

actually it wasnt the definition skirted so much as to the "show where a reputable clinician will posit that all religion is delusional"... that was/is Steve posit on the subject and never was a source or study revealed that was in agreement with Steve... it still has not been produced! he only posts a thread where i was not able to edit something so he took it and would not let it go... so much so... that he keeps wanting to use it to prove that he has the clinical studies to show that ...religion is delusional... which by ...clinical definition is not possible... ... the definition by those bodies is what clinicians use...or they dont get published.
anything else?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/06/2011 04:13PM by bignevermo.

Bigneverread . . .

It appears you and I weren't looking at the same post.

I think you night need to pay a bit more attention to what you read. Let's take it step-by-step in demonstrating why.
_____


**Religion as an Environmental Factor in Mental Disorder

You categorically claimed:

“Religion COULD be an envirnmental factor...although none actually state that.”

Since religion is an obvious environmental factor worthy of co-implication in the generation of religious delusions, it didn't have to be explicitly identified in those terms because:

(a) astute readers would know of its role in that regard; and

(b) religion was clearly mentioned repeatedly in cited sources as amounting to environmental factor.
_____


**Not All Sources I Cited Said That All Religious People Suffer from Religion Delusion

Again, you categorically claimed:

“NONE of your sources make the claims you are...that ALL religious people have a dilusional disorder. NONE of your sources say that...only YOU do... thats my point . . . .”

In fact, quotations I provided from those sources show that they didn't While the theme of my post was that religious believers are certainly in many cases cases delusionally disordered, not every source I cited claimed that “all religious people” are delusionally disordered.

For instance, the cited “Washington Times” article referenced a BBC report on the influence that the neurological wiring of the human brain plays in producing religious-like sensations. The article said nothing about religious delusional disorders hampering those in the study group; rather, it reported on organic brain function that naturally produces “strong religious,” “mystical” or “holy vision” sensations--in believers and non-believers alike--and which can be misinterpreted by believers and non-believers alike as something other than what they are.

Here's the relevant portion of that article in that regard:

"Does the biological structure of our brains program us to believe in God? Advances in “neurotheology” have prompted some researchers to claim they can induce the kind of holy visions prophets may have experienced--even in those who are not religious believers.”

(as quoted by Mark Smith, “Temporal Lobe Epilepsy,” in “Set Free!,” at: http://www.jcnot4me.com/Items/Misc%20Topics/schizophrenia_and_personal_revelations; the
same news article is also available from the U.K. “Telegraph,” at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3306312/Holy-visions-elude-scientists.html)


Parenthetically, that above news article did mention the case of Seventh-day Adventists founder Ellen White's sensational religious feelings, but reported that her delusions in that regard were a result of temporal lobe epilepsy, which the article noted supported the scientific finding that the temporal lobes are the origination point in the brain for so-called “religious” experiences.

There were other sources, however, which I referenced and quoted in which connections were made, to one degree or another, between religious indoctrination and religion delusional disorder.
_____


**Delusionary Cult Efforts to Rein In the Non-Deluded

I quoted from a source suggesting that some people not suffering from pre-existing religious delusion disorder can nonetheless be influenced toward development of such a mental malady through efforts by religious groups (in this case, cults) to snare and retain them.

Note was made, for instance, of family break-ups that occur when resistant family members refuse, despite pressure from other family members, to accept religious delusions as being anything but real, having concluded that they themselves are not delusional:

“Problems arise when a partner discovers that they are not delusional. When family members refuse to accept the delusions the result is often a breakup of the family unit. There is often no middle ground for a delusion believer and a non-delusion thinker.”

In further regard to religious cults, I quoted from that same source which pointed out who religious cults can be involved in the perpetration of religious mental disorders among their followers, with the cults denying, of course, that they are acting like a cult:

“ . . . [S]ome cults don’t perceive themselves as a cult and don’t understand why they’re not accepted by mainstream religions.”

(“Social Conscience and Rational Thinking,” posted by “skiutah,” under “Delusional Disorder,” at: http://coventryrm.wordpress.com/2011/07/11/delusional-disorder/)at.
_____


**Delusion-Driven Religious/Cultural Group Efforts at Creating Delusion

I also cited a source which suggested religious delusions can be created within the circles of “religious and cultural groups” (meaning in churches and other institutions) when, through exertion of cultural and religious influence, the mental state of individuals can give way to the eventual development of religious-rooted mind disorders that, in any other context, would be considered to be a form of mental illness:

“Given these descriptors of religious delusion, the question is then asked: 'Why do religions and cultural groups get the exemption? A mental disorder is only a disorder in particular contexts?'”

(Doug Reardon, “Religious and Cultural Exemptions to Delusional Disorder,” January 2011, in “Think Atheist,” at: http://www.thinkatheist.com/forum/topics/religious-and-cultural)


In this regard, poster “dagny” seemed to have grasped from the OP what you appear to have missed; namely, that modern-day religious groups do, in fact, popularize mental illness-producing beliefs among otherwise normal-minded members, which then can lead to the development of religious delusion disorder.

As “dagny” observed:

“Is religion a mental illness? For some reason, cultural consensus appears to decide this. What's the difference between these two things: You talk to Jesus before you go to sleep (popular, accepted by consensus to not be 'crazy.') Or--You talk to invisible flying alligators under your bed (hello, welcome to your room in the asylum). Seriously, is there any difference? If you think there is, I'd like to see the proof, other than the fact that one is accepted and one is not.”

(“That's the way I've come to view it too, RAG,” posted by: “dagny,” on “Recovery from Mormonism” bulletin board, “ 3 December 2011, at: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,356639,356952#msg-356952)


Indeed, underscoring “dagny's” observation is one of the links in my OP, headlined, in part: “. . . God Myths Have Survived Because Smart People Are Very Good at Rationalizing Things That They Came to Believe for Non-Smart Reasons,” posted by “skiutah,” under “Delusional Disorder,” 11 July 2011, at: http://coventryrm.wordpress.com/2011/07/11/delusional-disorder/


On cultural pressure to foster religious delusion, I also cited a source referencing a deluded “religious subculture” in Haiti, where mentally-disordered religion is practiced by that culture in mentally dysfunctional ways which results in the eventual inculcation in group members of strange beliefs and practices. (Please note that there was no mention made of religious delusion in that particular excerpt afflicting all religious members of Haiti society):

“The cultural relativity of 'delusions'--most evident where the beliefs shown are typical of the person's subculture or religion yet would be viewed as strange or delusional by the dominant culture--can force complex choices to be made in diagnosis and treatment.

“An example could be that of a Haitian immigrant to the United States who believed in voodoo. If that person became aggressive toward neighbors issuing curses or hexes--believing that death is imminent at the hands of those neighbors--a question arises. The belief is typical of the individual's subculture, so the issue is whether it should be diagnosed or treated. If it were to be treated, whether the remedy should come through Western medicine or be conducted through voodoo shamanistic treatment is the problem to be solved."

(“Delusional Disorder,” in “Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders,” at: http://www.minddisorders.com/Br-Del/Delusional-disorder.html#ixzz1fSoBP5Xb)


As to religious and other societal cultures, I quoted from a source that makes note of the influence of both of those pressure groups on the mindset of individuals within those cultures to accept certain beliefs as normal.

". . . [P]ersonal beliefs should be evaluated with great respect to complexity of cultural and religious differences: some cultures have widely accepted beliefs that may be considered delusional in other cultures."

(Shivani Chopra, MD; Raheel A. Khan, DO; James A. Bourgeois, OD, MD, MPA; and Donald M, Hilty, MD, "Delusional Disorder," updated 10 March 2011, in "Medscape Reference: Drugs, Diseases and Procedures," at: http://reference.medscape.com/)
_____


**I Didn't Cite the Cause of Religious Delusion? I'm Afraid You Must be Deluded

You asserted that I “actually left out a key part of the article Steve...'the Cause... "...which is disingenuous.”

What you actually did in your inattentive claim was to leave in the decidedly inaccurate impression that I did not address the causation issue at all--which was disingenuous on your part.

Please recall that I asked you to review the entire post (which included the links to all the cited sources). Had you read carefully (which you seem to have not), you would have noticed that, in fact, I quoted from several sources/articles relative to the cause(s) of religious delusion disorder:

“Traditionally, religious delusion, with or without hallucinations, has been associated with schizophrenia, affective psychoses, complex partial seizure disorder and drug-induced psychoses. Recent reports have associated religious delusion with epileptic postictal psychosis, psychoses characterized by self-inflicted injuries, psychoses induced by general medical illnesses and mystical religious fervor.”

(The authors responsible for this above assessment, however, note--as I quoted--that "[l]ittle is known about the clinical features associated with religious delusion and how religious delusion may differ across various diagnostic groups.. . . Although religious delusion has regularly been reported throughout the history of neuropsychiatry, surprisingly, there is no systematic study of religious delusion in unselected populations of psychiatric patients").

(M. Raja, A. Azzoni and L. Lubich, “Religious Delusion: An Observational Study of Religious Delusion in a Population of 313 Acute Psychiatric In-Patients,” in “Schwetzer Archive for Neurology and Psychiatry," 151, January 2000, p. 22, at: http://www.sanp.ch/pdf/2000/2000-01/2000-01-058.PDF)


Below are some more quotes that I provided on religious delusion causation:

"Not all of these cases are based on religious delusions but scientists . . . have already proven there is a pathological connection between schizophrenia and religious delusion. Treatment is iffy at best with these folks because when they take their medication, they realize they aren't as 'religious' as they were off their medication so their treatment often fails. Then there are those who comply with their treatment plan and realize that their obsessive-compulsive religious thoughts and behaviors were a result of their psychiatric diagnosis. . . .

"Unfortunately, many don't get help because of their pre-conceived religious perception. Then the problem exacerbates and often their peers continue to egg them on when they need serious psychiatric help. The line has to be drawn at some point where successful intervention can be made. So often with religious folk, that line gets extended beyond a normal mental state where treatment can be perceived as satanic."

"[The people studied] had already been diagnosed as schizophrenic and psychotic with religious delusions . . . [with] study [being] done specifically on the religiously deluded. There have been a minimum of 78 peer-reviewed research studies published on religious delusion that were cited . . . so the case is not an isolated one."

(“Religious Delusions Are a Common Symptom of Schizophrenia,” posted “Medicine*Woman,” in “Sciforums.com,” at: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=51361&page=3):


“ . . . [S]chizophrenia is a better and simpler explanation for all the people--past and present--who have claimed that [the] Bible god spoke to them. . . .


“'In paranoid schizophrenia, the patient becomes convinced of beliefs at odds with reality hears voices that aren't there or see images that exist nowhere but in his mind. . . .The voices the patients heard were therefore as real to them as the conversations in the hallways they passed through en route to the lab. . . . The seeming authenticity of the voices means that people with schizophrenia can be barraged by commands that, they are convinced, come from God or Satan. That inference is not illogical; who else can speak to you, unseen, from inside your mind?”

(Mark Smith, “Schizophrenia and Personal Revelations,” in “Set Free!,” at: http://www.jcnot4me.com/Items/Misc%20Topics/schizophrenia_and_personal_revelations.htm)


“Joseph Smith displayed classic symptoms of the grandiose form of delusional disorder. He was successful at attracting other people with delusional disorder and convincing them of his visions. This core band of nascent Mormon leaders (all suffering from delusional disorder) were successful at passing on the delusional gene to their children through widespread polygamy in the early Mormon church years.”

(“Social Conscience and Rational Thinking,” posted by “skiutah,” under “Delusional Disorder,” at: http://coventryrm.wordpress.com/2011/07/11/delusional-disorder/)
_____


**A Summary of My Post

Based on the sources I cited and examples I presented in the OP, religious delusions can occur as a result of:

--pre-exisiting individual mental dysfunction;

--external religious/cultural influence brought to bear on individuals who are not necessarily presently suffering from pre-set psychosis;

--the fostering by religious groups of delusional beliefs that encourage their members to interpret naturally-produced “mystical” experiences within their brains as being actual “holy vision” or “prophetic” communications from God when, in fact, they are the result of neurological realities organically produced within both healthy or injured brains; and

--religious indoctrination that includes standard teaching of visionary tales from canonized Christian scripture that are presented as actual events, which teaching can have a decidedly negative effect on people who conclude that they are entitled to the same kind of alleged visionary contacts with God.
_____


**You, Me and the Research Thing

Finally, you accused me of not doing my own research with this “btw” claim of yours:

“ . . . [Y]ou may have read and copy and pasted (which is what I did) but you did not do the research that you cite! so to say 'do my own research you are being disingenuous at best and are using a red herring.”

When I said I did my own research, it was certainly clear enough as to what I meant; namely, that I source-searched for published studies, papers, articles and other findings which I then cited in the OP. My statement that I had done my own research in that regard is hardly misleading within that context, as evidenced by the fact that the sources I came across through my own research efforts I then quoted, sourced and linked.

In addition, in terms of personal research, I have read in its entirety, then dissected section by section, a topic-related review of clinical research on this subject (one which, by the way, I have already linked to you in this current thread). It was a published paper recommended to me by another poster, as I noted here:

(“Koenig the Seminarian: A Barnstorming Believer Who Wants to Be Taken Scientifically Seriously in His Pitch for the Mental Health Benefits of Supernaturalism,” posted by Steve Benson,” on “Recovery from Mormonism” bulletin board, 29 November 2011, at: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,353070,353070#msg-353070)


Moreover, in related threads on this topic, I have quoted at length from my personal reading of resource material in my own library--most recently from the works of Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer on the generation of in-brain “religious” experiences, as noted here:

(“How the Realities of Science Trump the Myths of Religion in Providing Non-Deluded Hope for a Better World,” posted by Steve Benson, on “Recovery from Mormonism” bulletin board, 3 December 2011, at: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,357028)


But since you have chosen to make an issue of research in your reply, please point me to examples of your own multiple-source-searching research efforts on these topics, as demonstrated in this thread and in past threads. I think I may have missed them. :)

If you can't produce them, that's OK.

I'll cut you a little break: What books have you read on the subject lately? :)



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 12/06/2011 04:04PM by steve benson.

where is you citation that RELIGION IS DELUSIONAL?
you keep posting the same stuff over and over. Steve... what you cite does not say that religion is delusional... that statement...religion is delusional encompasses all religion.. not that some people are religiously affected or that some religions foster the schizophrenics and such... just post your one source that says all religious people are delusional? reputable source please..and peer reviewed and published? you were not able to before... i have no hopes for it now... maybe you think i will be worn down by you repeating the same thing... if you can show it do it....and dont post your whole list again please... just one will do... post a source that says
religion is delusional... clinical source please!

What I have done here is merely quote you, the post you misquoted and the quotes that you either ignored or didn't comprehend.

In response to that response on your part, "lulu" (who, by the way, has had you for lunch lately) observed:

"Whooaa there cowboy.

"Exactly who's ass has been kicked?

"The world is still awaiting robertb's answer to the direct, unambigous question:

"What's your best argument that the DSM is correct.

"Ride that for a while."

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,357316,357677#msg-357677



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 12/06/2011 04:36PM by steve benson.

In response to that response on your part, "lulu" (who, by the way, has had you for lunch lately) observed:

just how in the hell did lulu had me for lunch... what the hell are you reading???
and this??

"The world is still awaiting robertb's answer to the direct, unambigous question:

"What's your best argument that the DSM is correct.

"Ride that for a while."
what in the hell does that have to do with me??? lulu ate my lunch because robertb did not reply??? hey robertb is prolly smart enough to stay away from people that have forgone conclusions and use bullshit to back up their bullshit claims!! :)
more than half of your citations are just total bullshit as far as your clinical evidence goes... in fact only one citation meets the clinical criteria!! hell you even used other BB's and other poster from this site...pfft!!
is this true for all your citations on your posts?.... do you fill the space up with so much crap that people dont read it and just accept your divine word?
i aint impressed!!
my below post show why you had to use logical fallacies and red herrings doesnt it!



Edited 10 time(s). Last edit at 12/06/2011 06:20PM by bignevermo.

your first citation starts with and has to do with:
Does the biological structure of our brains program us to believe in God? this is one study with Dawkins and he might be a little biased...in fact it was a subjective one time study
ok... that does not say that ...religion is delusional. i will get back to ya as i have to go somewhere...perhaps by then you can show me what i would like to see. oh i am sure sSteve will have something to say in the meantime... just show me the post... where the conclusion is:
religion is a delusion!
i'll right be back!
K
(as quoted by Mark Smith, “Temporal Lobe Epilepsy,” in “Set Free!,” at: http://www.jcnot4me.com/Items/Misc%20Topics/schizophrenia_and_personal_revelations; the
same news article is also available from the U.K. “Telegraph,” at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3306312/Holy-visions-elude-scientists.html)
where is the clinical publication...not here..K next:
ok here this article from coventry...the highly esteemed clinical publication!! :
(“Social Conscience and Rational Thinking,” posted by “skiutah,” under “Delusional Disorder,” at: http://coventryrm.wordpress.com/2011/07/11/delusional-disorder/)at.
_____/...nope sorry not here either...not peer reviewed or even a clinical abstract...next:
here is another "source" you cite:
(Doug Reardon, “Religious and Cultural Exemptions to Delusional Disorder,” January 2011, in “Think Atheist,” at: http://www.thinkatheist.com/forum/topics/religious-and-cultural)

nope..thinkatheist is not a clinical publication either. next:
(“That's the way I've come to view it too, RAG,” posted by: “dagny,” on “Recovery from Mormonism” bulletin board, “ 3 December 2011, at: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,356639,356952#msg-356952)

really ya gonna use Dagny as a clinical peer reviewed abstract? hey i like Dagny but... nothing yet so far...lets delve deeper. next:
Indeed, underscoring “dagny's” observation is one of the links in my OP, headlined, in part: “. . . God Myths Have Survived Because Smart People Are Very Good at Rationalizing Things That They Came to Believe for Non-Smart Reasons,” posted by “skiutah,” under “Delusional Disorder,” 11 July 2011, at: http://coventryrm.wordpress.com/2011/07/11/delusional-disorder/
another coventry article?
pfft..next:

Delusional disorder is characterized by the presence of recurrent, persistent non-bizarre delusions .


Delusions are irrational beliefs, held with a high level of conviction, that are highly resistant to change even when the delusional person is exposed to forms of proof that contradict the belief. Non-bizarre delusions are considered to be plausible; that is, there is a possibility that what the person believes to be true could actually occur a small proportion of the time. Conversely, bizarre delusions focus on matters that would be impossible in reality. For example, a non-bizarre delusion might be the belief that one's activities are constantly under observation by federal law enforcement or intelligence agencies, which actually does occur for a small number of people. By contrast, a man who believes he is pregnant with German Shepherd puppies holds a belief that could never come to pass in reality. Also, for beliefs to be considered delusional, the content or themes of the beliefs must be uncommon in the person's culture or religion. Generally, in delusional disorder, these mistaken beliefs are organized into a consistent world-view that is logical other than being based on an improbable foundation.

In addition to giving evidence of a cluster of interrelated non-bizarre delusions, persons with delusional disorder experience hallucinations far less frequently than do individuals with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder .

Description
Unlike most other psychotic disorders, the person with delusional disorder typically does not appear obviously odd, strange or peculiar during periods of active illness. Yet the person might make unusual choices in day-to-day life because of the delusional beliefs. Expanding on the previous example, people who believe they are under government observation might seem typical in most ways but could refuse to have a telephone or use credit cards in order to make it harder for "those Federal agents" to monitor purchases and conversations. Most mental health professionals would concur that until the person with delusional disorder discusses the areas of life affected by the delusions, it would be difficult to distinguish the sufferer from members of the general public who are not psychiatrically disturbed. Another distinction of delusional disorder compared with other psychotic disorders is that hallucinations are either absent or occur infrequently.

The person with delusional disorder may or may not come to the attention of mental health providers. Typically, while delusional disorder sufferers may be distressed about the delusional "reality," they may not have the insight to see that anything is wrong with the way they are thinking or functioning. Regarding the earlier example, those suffering delusion might state that the only thing wrong or upsetting in their lives is that the government is spying, and if the surveillance would cease, so would the problems. Similarly, the people suffering the disorder attribute any obstacles or problems in functioning to the delusional reality, separating it from their internal control. Furthermore, whether unable to get a good job or maintain a romantic relationship, the difficulties would be blamed on "government interference" rather than on their own failures or omissions. Unless the form of the delusions causes illegal behavior, somehow affects an ability to work, or otherwise deal with daily activities, the delusional disorder sufferer may adapt well enough to navigate life without coming to clinical attention. When people with delusional disorder decide to seek mental health care, the motivation for getting treatment is usually to decrease the negative emotions of depression, fearfulness, rage, or constant worry caused by living under the cloud of delusional beliefs, not to change the unusual thoughts themselves.

Forms of delusional disorder
An important aspect of delusional disorder is the identification of the form of delusion from which a person suffers. The most common form of delusional disorder is the persecutory or paranoid subtype, in which the patients are certain that others are striving to harm them.

In the erotomanic form of delusional disorder, the primary delusional belief is that some important person is secretly in love with the sufferer. The erotomanic type is more common in women than men. Erotomanic delusions may prompt stalking the love object and even violence against the beloved or those viewed as potential romantic rivals.

The grandiose subtype of delusional disorder involves the conviction of one's importance and uniqueness, and takes a variety of forms: believing that one has a distinguished role, has some remarkable connections with important persons, or enjoys some extraordinary powers or abilities.

In the somatic subtype, there is excessive concern and irrational ideas about bodily functioning, which may include worries regarding infestation with parasites or insects, imagined physical deformity, or a conviction that one is emitting a foul stench when there is no problematic odor.

The form of disorder most associated with violent behavior, usually between romantic partners, is the jealous subtype of delusional disorder. Patients are firmly convinced of the infidelity of a spouse or partner, despite contrary evidence and based on minimal data (like a messy bedspread or more cigarettes than usual in an ashtray, for instance). Delusional jealousy sufferers may gather scraps of conjectured "evidence," and may try to constrict their partners' activities or confine them to home. Delusional disorder cases involving aggression and injury toward others have been most associated with this subtype.

Delusion and other disorders
Even though the main characteristic of delusional disorder is a noticeable system of delusional beliefs, delusions may occur in the course of a large number of other psychiatric disorders. Delusions are often observed in persons with other psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder. In addition to occurring in the psychotic disorders, delusions also may be evident as part of a response to physical, medical conditions (such as brain injury or brain tumors), or reactions to ingestion of a drug.

Delusions also occur in the dementias, which are syndromes wherein psychiatric symptoms and memory loss result from deterioration of brain tissue. Because delusions can be shown as part of many illnesses, the diagnosis of delusional disorder is partially conducted by process of elimination. If the delusions are not accompanied by persistent, recurring hallucinations, then schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder are not appropriate diagnoses. If the delusions are not accompanied by memory loss, then dementia is ruled out. If there is no physical illness or injury or other active biological cause (such as drug ingestion or drug withdrawal), then the delusions cannot be attributed to a general medical problem or drug-related causes. If delusions are the most obvious and pervasive symptom, without hallucinations, medical causation, drug influences or memory loss, then delusional disorder is the most appropriate categorization.

Because delusions occur in many different disorders, some clinician-researchers have argued that there is little usefulness in focusing on what diagnosis the person has been given. Those who ascribe to this view believe it is more important to focus on the symptom of delusional thinking, and find ways to have an effect on delusions, whether they occur in delusional disorder or schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. The majority of psychotherapy techniques used in delusional disorder come from symptom-focused (as opposed to diagnosis-focused) researcher-practitioners.

Causes and symptoms
Causes
Because clear identification of delusional disorder has traditionally been challenging, scientists have conducted far less research relating to the disorder than studies for schizophrenia or mood disorders. Still, some theories of causation have developed, which fall into several categories.

GENETIC OR BIOLOGICAL. Close relatives of persons with delusional disorder have increased rates of delusional disorder and paranoid personality traits. They do not have higher rates of schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder or mood disorder compared to relatives of non-delusional persons. Increased incidence of these psychiatric disorders in individuals closely genetically related to persons with delusional disorder suggest that there is a genetic component to the disorder. Furthermore, a number of studies comparing activity of different regions of the brain in delusional and non-delusional research participants yielded data about differences in the functioning of the brains between members of the two groups. These differences in brain activity suggest that persons neurologically with delusions tend to react as if threatening conditions are consistently present. Non-delusional persons only show such patterns under certain kinds of conditions where the interpretation of being threatened is more accurate. With both brain activity evidence and family heritability evidence, a strong chance exists that there is a biological aspect to delusional disorder.

DYSFUNCTIONAL COGNITIVE PROCESSING. An elaborate term for thinking is "cognitive processing." Delusions may arise from distorted ways people have of explaining life to themselves. The most prominent cognitive problems involve the manner in which delusion sufferers develop conclusions both about other people, and about causation of unusual perceptions or negative events. Studies examining how people with delusions develop theories about reality show that the subjects have ideas which which they tend to reach an inference based on less information than most people use. This "jumping to conclusions" bias can lead to delusional interpretations of ordinary events. For example, developing flu-like symptoms coinciding with the week new neighbors move in might lead to the conclusion, "the new neighbors are poisoning me." The conclusion is drawn without considering alternative explanations—catching an illness from a relative with the flu, that a virus seems to be going around at work, or that the tuna salad from lunch at the deli may have been spoiled. Additional research shows that persons prone to delusions "read" people differently than non-delusional individuals do. Whether they do so more accurately or particularly poorly is a matter of controversy. Delusional persons develop interpretations about how others view them that are distorted. They tend to view life as a continuing series of threatening events. When these two aspects of thought co-occur, a tendency to develop delusions about others wishing to do them harm is likely.

MOTIVATED OR DEFENSIVE DELUSIONS. Some predisposed persons might suffer the onset of an ongoing delusional disorder when coping with life and maintaining high self-esteem becomes a significant challenge. In order to preserve a positive view of oneself, a person views others as the cause of personal difficulties that may occur. This can then become an ingrained pattern of thought.

Symptoms
The criteria that define delusional disorder are furnished in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fourth Edition Text Revision, or DSM-IV-TR , published by the American Psychiatric Association. The criteria for delusional disorder are as follows:

•non-bizarre delusions which have been present for at least one month
•absence of obviously odd or bizarre behavior
•absence of hallucinations, or hallucinations that only occur infrequently in comparison to other psychotic disorders
•no memory loss, medical illness or drug or alcohol-related effects are associated with the development of delusions
Demographics
The base rate of delusional disorder in adults is unclear. The prevalence is estimated at 0.025-0.03%, lower than the rates for schizophrenia (1%). Delusional disorder may account for 1–2% of admissions to inpatient psychiatric hospitals. Age at onset ranges from 18–90 years, with a mean age of 40 years. More females than males (overall) suffer from delusional disorder, especially the late onset form that is observed in the elderly.

Diagnosis
Client interviews focused on obtaining information about the sufferer's life situation and past history aid in identification of delusional disorder. With the client's permission, the clinician obtains details from earlier medical records, and engages in thorough discussion with the client's immediate family—helpful measures in determining whether delusions are present. The clinician may use a semi-structured interview called a mental status examination to assess the patient's concentration, memory, understanding the individual's situation and logical thinking. The mental status examination is intended to reveal peculiar thought processes in the patient. The Peters Delusion Inventory (PDI) is a psychological test that focuses on identifying and understanding delusional thinking; but its use is more common in research than in clinical practice.

Even using the DSM-IV-TR criteria listed above, classification of delusional disorder is relatively subjective. The criteria "non-bizarre" and "resistant to change" and "not culturally accepted" are all subject to very individual interpretations. They create variability in how professionals diagnose the illness. The utility of diagnosing the syndrome rather than focusing on successful treatment of delusion in any form of illness is debated in the medical community. Some researchers further contend that delusional disorder, currently classified as a psychotic disorder, is actually a variation of depression and might respond better to antidepressants or therapy more similar to that utilized for depression. Also, the meaning and implications of "culturally accepted" can create problems. The cultural relativity of "delusions,"—most evident where the beliefs shown are typical of the person's subculture or religion yet would be viewed as strange or delusional by the dominant culture—can force complex choices to be made in diagnosis and treatment. An example could be that of a Haitian immigrant to the United States who believed in voodoo. If that person became aggressive toward neighbors issuing curses or hexes, believing that death is imminent at the hands of those neighbors, a question arises. The belief is typical of the individual's subculture, so the issue is whether it should be diagnosed or treated. If it were to be treated, whether the remedy should come through Western medicine, or be conducted through voodoo shamanistic treatment is the problem to be solved.

Treatments
Delusional disorder treatment often involves atypical (also called novel or newer-generation ) antipsychotic medications, which can be effective in some patients. Risperidone (Risperdal), quetiapine (Seroquel), and olanzapine (Zyprexa) are all examples of atypical or novel antipsychotic medications. If agitation occurs, a number of different antipsychotics can be used to conclude the outbreak of acute agitation. Agitation, a state of frantic activity experienced concurrently with anger or exaggerated fearfulness, increases the risk that the client will endanger self or others. To decrease anxiety and slow behavior in emergency situations where agitation is a factor, an injection of haloperidol (Haldol) is often given usually in combination with other medications (often lorazepam , also known as Ativan). Agitation in delusional disorder is a typical response to severe or harsh confrontation when dealing with the existence of the delusions. It can also be a result of blocking the individual from performing inappropriate actions the client views as urgent in light of the delusional reality. A novel antipsychotic is generally given orally on a daily basis for ongoing treatment meant for long-term effect on the symptoms. Response to antipsychotics in delusional disorder seems to follow the "rule of thirds," in which about one-third of patients respond somewhat positively, one-third show little change, and one-third worsen or are unable to comply.

Cognitive therapy has shown promise as an emerging treatment for delusions. The cognitive therapist tries to capitalize on any doubt the individual has about the delusions; then attempts to develop a joint effort with the sufferer to generate alternative explanations, assisting the client in checking the evidence. This examination proceeds in favor of the various explanations. Much of the work is done by use of empathy, asking hypothetical questions in a form of therapeutic Socratic dialogue—a process that follows a basic question and answer format, figuring out what is known and unknown before reaching a logical conclusion. Combining pharmacotherapy with cognitive therapy integrates both treating the possible underlying biological problems and decreasing the symptoms with psychotherapy.

Prognosis
Evidence collected to date indicates about 10% of cases will show some improvement of delusional symptoms though irrational beliefs may remain; 33–50% may show complete remission; and, in 30–40% of cases there will be persistent non-improving symptoms. The prognosis for clients with delusional disorder is largely related to the level of conviction regarding the delusions and the openness the person has for allowing information that contradicts the delusion.

Prevention
Little work has been done thus far regarding prevention of the disorder. Effective means of prevention have not been identified.


(“Delusional Disorder,” in “Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders,” at: http://www.minddisorders.com/Br-Del/Delusional-disorder.html#ixzz1fSoBP5Xb)
that artical only briefly mentions voodoo...and an extreme example at that... nope nothing here on religious people are delusional.
next:
(Shivani Chopra, MD; Raheel A. Khan, DO; James A. Bourgeois, OD, MD, MPA; and Donald M, Hilty, MD, "Delusional Disorder," updated 10 March 2011, in "Medscape Reference: Drugs, Diseases and Procedures," at: http://reference.medscape.com/)

well nothing here at all...just a link to a site. next:

now here is the closest so far... this study published in a European journal at least will define a "religious delusion"...but they studied people already with a clinical diagnosis of schizophrenia and do NOT CONCLUDE that religion is delusional....read for your self...
among the central symptoms
of severe psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia,
schizoaffective, and bipolar disorder at the
acute phase. In this population of patients, religious
delusion was not related to any psychiatric
diagnosis. However, it was associated with a more
ominous psychopathological course, possibly because
religious delusion exerts a more pervasive
influence on patients’ thought, affect, and behaviour.
Looked at from this perspective, our results
suggest an alternative outlook on delusions that deemphasises
the importance of diagnosis and looks
instead at delusions and other major symptom
areas as psychopathological dimensions. Future
studies to assess the relation between delusional
contents and clinical variables are needed to address
this issue.
still nothing that says:religion is delusional...next:

(“Religious Delusions Are a Common Symptom of Schizophrenia,” posted “Medicine*Woman,” in “Sciforums.com,” at: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=51361&page=3):
huh?? that is a BB...not a clinical abstract at all.
next:
(Mark Smith, “Schizophrenia and Personal Revelations,” in “Set Free!,” at: http://www.jcnot4me.com/Items/Misc%20Topics/schizophrenia_and_personal_revelations.htm)
Mark Smith again...another non peer reviewed and non clinical site...in fact... jc not for me.... nice SB!!
next:
(“Social Conscience and Rational Thinking,” posted by “skiutah,” under “Delusional Disorder,” at: http://coventryrm.wordpress.com/2011/07/11/delusional-disorder/)
_____

more from: skiutah...really SB thats a peer reviewed clinical source?? pfft!!
next:
oh wait,,,there is no next!! Things that make ya go hmmmmmm.
lets summerize....there is not one peer reviewed study or abstract here that would pass any clinical muster for religious delusions... except the European study... and that one comes nowhere near your conclusion... so in conclusion:
Steve... epic fail as to proving your point that:
religion is a delusion.... well in fact...there is religion so it is not a delusion to think there is religion!! :) but... more to the point... religion is delusional is not backed up by any of your sources!!
thought so....from the
unread Biggy!!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/06/2011 06:07PM by bignevermo.

You're still obviously having a hard time reading and comprehending (this time your own words).

In the meantime, how's that dismount of yours coming--you know, from the pony you not only rode in on but the one you still won't jump off of?

Remember what you said you do earlier?:


"here is another one... THEN I AM OFF THIS DAMN HORSE!!:)"

(emphasis added)

("LOL!!!," posted by "bignevermo." on "Recovery from Mormonism" bulletin board, 5 December 2011, at: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,357316,357417#msg-357417}



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 12/06/2011 07:16PM by steve benson.

into the fray.... so i thank you for your support and understanding! :)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/06/2011 02:54PM by bignevermo.

BNM, some posters need religion to be a mental illness and arguing with them is an exercise in frustration. You would get further trying to explain things to a brick wall. These are the same people who know all there is to know about NDEs, historicty of Jesus, the beliefs and practices of other churches. I notice one of them yesterday accused Robert B of an appeal to authority. Considering it is his field and he has actually read the literature, there is nothing wrong with citing experts. However, this same person was not objecting to the orignal poster's appeal to authority and a dubious authority at that. You can't argue with people like that.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/06/2011 04:22PM by bona dea.

be right back...well and hour or so!! :)

I happen to be trying to figure out what I think. One of my main learning styles is arguing. The NDE and delusion threads have been very helpful to me. Thank you.

As a recovering Mormon I think I am well within the bounds of Recovery from Mormonism in trying to reality test here statements about life after death, the reality of religious assertions and on what basis one might make decisions about such things.

Your post here was most unkind.

You tested the standard of psychology for determining mental illness and accused a psychologist of an appeal to authority for stating that standard while not doing the same thing for statements on psychology from people who are not in the field at all. Do you not see a double standard? I do. Sorry if you thought it was unkind, but I stand by it. Things should be questioned, but if you are going to question the experts, at least do the same thing for people who are making assertions about things totally out of their field. Experts can be wrong,, but the odds are that a psychologist knows more about psycholpogy than a lawyer or mechanic and I am betting if you had an emotional problem, you would go to the psychologist not the lawyer or mechanic just as you would not expect the psycholpgist to fix your car or deal with your legal problems.

You are missing the point. If a psychologist or anyone else recommends something that you don't feel comfortable with, you get a second opinion. Surely you wouldn't give up on pshchology altogether if you had a serious problem and get advice from you accountant on how to cure your depression? If you have cancer, getting a second, third or forth opinion would be a good idea, but taking your mechanic's advice to get Laetril treatment in Mexico would be stupid.EXPERTS CAN BE WRONG, BUT THEY ARE A HELL OF A LOT ORE LIKELY TO BE RIGHT THAT SOME AVERAGE jOE ON THE STREET.

DICK THAT'S ON THE LINE YOU DON'T WANT TO PLAY THE PER CENTAGES.

See the point?

Maybe not, but you still wouldn't go to a lawyer if you had cancer. At least I wouldn't. I'd find the best onclogist I could find and then I would have to take my chances. Nothing is guaranteed and even experts can be wrong, but you still go with the most knowledgeable after doing your research if you have any common sense. If you want to disregard the experts out of hand and accept the word and sources of posters on the internet, be my guest, but I wouldn't.You haven't answerd my question about why Robert B who is in the field was appealing to authority while other posters and their questionable sources were not.Still waiting.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/06/2011 06:36PM by bona dea.

Hey bona dea...


If Steve could simply clarify his position about Religion being in and of itself, as per the clinical definition, delusion, that would sure help bandwidth...

And after lulu clears up her double standard about posters appealing to authority, perhaps she and Steve could answer robertb's other point:


"...there is a fundamental error in criticizing religion by attributing a mental illness to its individual followers. This is not a case in which you can add up dysfunctional individuals to get a pathological whole. Think about this: Some 95% of Americans profess religious belief yet .03% of the population is diagnosed with delusional disorder. So there is either an incredible number of people with undiagnosed delusional disorder or atheist critics of religion are prone to a nearly 95% error rate in their analysis. Not a reason for confidence of their criticisms, really."

(Good on you, bignevermo. Appreciate the tenacity.)

That would help. Geez. How many threads do we need saying the same thing over and over and avoiding pertinent questions?

Can't remember who said it, RAG maybe, but someone from the beginning pointed out why this is such an important topic.

Steve, following the rhetoric of the likes of Shermer and Dawkins, wishes to politicize pathology. Very dangerous. And a place where invoking Godwin's Law can be legitimate.

Glad bignevermo is dogged on this subject.

I think Robertb has said about all that could have been said, and yet obviously his clear, controlled and precise writing didn't make a dent.

You and your personal polemics.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/06/2011 07:21PM by steve benson.

steve benson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You and your personal polemics.


Not true. Brian Appleyard, whom I agree with on many things, writes polemics, as do Shermer and Dawkins.

No scientist would dare quote Shermer scientifically. He's a popularizer, and a crass one at that, not a scientist.

You use the term "polemics" to dismiss their interpretations of that data.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/06/2011 07:59PM by steve benson.

1. >If you have cancer, getting a second, third or forth opinion would be a good idea<

2. >but taking your mechanic's advice to get Laetril treatment in Mexico would be stupid.<

I agree with your first example. It is what I have been saying throughout the "delusion" threads. I would get a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th opinion on whether the DSM was correct as to homosexuality, transgenderism (yes, the DSM still classifies it as a disorder), or the religious exemption for delusions.

I did not get a 2nd opinion as to the shrink's cure for homosexuality, I just walked away. I've always had an aversion to being shocked. But I digress.

At those 2nd, 3rd and 4th opinion appointments, I would ask the Dr. for her best argument based on observable, quatifiable and replicable evidence her position was correct. And that is all I have asked for from robertb and BNM.

I understand robertb's and BNM's position to be, the DSM says it, I believe it and that settles it. I don't think that's your position based on your example 1 above.

Belief in the seldom seen beyond the beyond has done enough damage in the world that I think it is OK to have a RfM argument, even an extended one, about whether the sweeping DSM exemption for religion is appropriate. (Yes, I went to church Sun. Wonderful men and boys choir singing Advent songs, about fell out of my pew when the Episcopal priest said there is a hell with sulfer fire. Didn't know there were any Episcopalians around who believed that, but again, I digress).

I've had a tendency to too readily accept authority without question. Goes with a long youth of being a morgbot. RfM has helped me with that and I'm trying out my wings. Based on what I've learned and my life experiences, DSM is more than a red cape, so yes, I've unloaded on it.

But, I'm not saying that we should consult with the mechanic about the DSM. Quite the opposite. Let's consult with experimental scientists who work in the psyc fields. I am saying that no one needs to blindly follow the DSM and that it is OK to continully ask for scientific evidence to justify its assertions. Sometimes the DSM changes for the better.

I didn't see Robert B position the way you do. I think he has studied the issue and agrees with them after studying. I also didn't see any blind acceptance of their position from him. I agree about being skeptical, but not to the point of dismissing anyone with a degree out of hand just because you don't agree with them. I have seen that happen a lot on this board and it has happened to me.I am not a big fan of the anti intellectual attitudes of some posters here. I am speaking generally so don't take it personally.

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,357816,358389#msg-358389

>uh yeaah!! aint that we we be talkin bout? :)<


Nice try. But the burden's on you.

>we should use the clinical definition that is current for today<

You are putting the definition out there, you're the one who needs to support it's religious exemption with empirical, measurable and repeatable evidence.

i have supply the definitions ad infinitum.... you just dont want to accept them...like other people here...
just sayin!!
empirical, measurable and repeatable evidence
what? that is for data..not definitions.... silly rabbit! :)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/06/2011 06:26PM by bignevermo.

On what are the definitions based? That's the unanwered question I'm asking? ;(

Having started this thread, I feel a certain obligation to weigh in as things come to a close. I've weighed the various responses and I think all perspectives expressed here are useful.

There's not much else to do except declare a winner:

bignevermo takes the thread.



p.s. I refuse to define what I mean by "winner."

+1

When bignev is confronted by lulu with pointers on how bnm's arguments don't hold up, bnm admits that fact with a tepid "maybe"--which is bnm's wiggly way of confessing that he's lost the point without confessing that he's lost the point.

Match to lulu.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/06/2011 07:35PM by steve benson.

You've already got your journalism prize. Please allow bignevermo to relish this moment. :)

I'd like to say that I have not worried about how psychology classifies beliefs.

I'm basing my statements on the obvious fact that most religions provide information they present as factual that they base on faith. Be it "miracles" or claims about the nature of a god, these beliefs are not based on any reliable evidence. Be it angels, talking donkeys, or wafers that turn into a god's body, these things are what I would classify as delusions if someone believes them based on belief. Therefore the person that makes such claims as if they were real is delusional.

However, this is the way humans are in general. Most of us have delusions. Some of us try to eliminate them when we recognize them. The delusions are not all religious in nature, but religion is undoubtedly the largest generator of these kinds of delusions. Humans make up things to explain the unknown, share messages through stories, etc. All humans are delusional because that's the way humans function in general. It's relative and varies by degree.

Whether or not this means they are delusional by the standards of psychologists, I don't really concern myself. The standards of psychological illness changes over time as we learn more (remember when homosexuality was a mental illness?).

I don't think Benson was using me as a peer reviewed psychologist, for cripes sake. He simply brought up the statement I made that shows belief in something made up equals a delusion. It's not that complicated, in my opinion.

Just answer the question:

What's the difference between these two things: You talk to Jesus before you go to sleep (popular, accepted by consensus to not be 'crazy.') Or--You talk to invisible flying alligators under your bed (hello, welcome to your room in the asylum).

It seems to me that some are trying to skirt the question by arguing about about psychological classifications. I, at least, didn't intend to involve the classification manual but whatever.

If the difference is that psychologists get to draw the line, that's fine, but a delusion is a delusion. I'm not saying all people belong in an institution, because most humans are delusional to some degree. I've known for a long time that the human inmates are running asylum Earth!