I'm probably as tired of the delusion debate as anyone, but I haven't seen this answered properly, and it appears you are unwilling to let it go. Before you can say that something is or isn't a delusion, we have to say what it is.

And that is completely aside from the clinical vs general definition issue, which should be treated separately.

The best definition I've read comes from "The Supernatural and Natural Selection" by Steadman & Palmer. I'm paraphrasing but it something like this: religion is the non-skeptical communicated acceptance of another person's supernatural claim.

To give an example: Joseph Smith comes home from a walk in the woods and says to his brother Hyrum, "I just saw and talked with God and Jesus (a supernatural claim)".

Hyrum replies, "Amen! (non-skeptical) I believe you, Joseph!" (A communicated acceptance of Joseph's claim.

Voila! A religion is born.

Religion is derived from the latin religio, which means 'linking back'.

Religion is that which links back an embodied being to a Source; so, separate embodied beings 'link back' to a common Source, creating a community of individuals sharing the experience of a common Source.

The 'linking back' is expressed symbolically through ritual and literary and/or pictorial imagery. Metaphor is that which links us back.

So, the Greeks linked themselves back to the gods of Olympus. This 'linking back' was expressed in ritual, dance, song, poetry, drama, and pictorial representation.

Religion is an Art and can be evaluated only as an Art.

To say that Religion is delusion is to say that Art is delusion.

Long Live the Arts

Human

(I understand how literalism among the religious complicates my definition. But experientially, believing that Calliope, Clio and Thalia are embodied beings makes little difference to the making of Epic, History and Comedy, in fact it may help. The same with "Jesus".)

...I find is the best use of religion. It's the Joseph Campbell-ish view.

So cartoon artist Steve Benson proudly won a Pulitzer Prize--for delusion!

(Cocteau: Art is a lie which always tells the truth.)

I think Steve would prefer Picasso to Cocteau, though:

"Art is the lie that enables us to realize the truth."

(Don't know if that's a real quote. Found it on the 'net, which lies a lot.)

religion [ri-lij-uhn]  
Origin

re·li·gion   [ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith

i agree with you here...
And that is completely aside from the clinical vs general definition issue, which should be treated separately.

if you were to say:
it is my opinion religion is a delusion or delusional and leave it at that... hey go for it.

you don't need citations...especially abstracts and posts from this and other forums...do that and expect a challenge... your statement should be able to stand alone...it is your opinion and you can shout it from the hill tops as far as i am concerned. it is when someone try's to prove their point with citations and science is what i have a problem with because then it is may just be an appeal to authority.
thanks RAG... i appreciate your demeanor!
now if i could just get rid of these ellipses... i would be doing alright!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/08/2011 01:38PM by bignevermo.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/08/2011 01:50PM by bignevermo.

....I think there are also different perspectives from philosophy, sociology, anthropology, the law, etc.

But let's limit it to a clinical perspective and your definition #1. I promise not to dump ten pages of text into our exchange.

......

1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

......

I think the distinctive feature of religion, vs other beliefs re: the universe, is the reliance on "superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances".

Superhuman agency + devotional and ritual observances = Magical Thinking.

Magical thinking is common and natural in childhood, as it reflects the early development of consciousness of the self and the world....but when it persists into adulthood it becomes pathological.

I submit that organizations and systems of thought that rely on "magical thinking" are promoting delusion. This is "delusion" in both the general and clinical sense. The DSM was never designed to be applied to belief systems or groups, so it is not the appropriate tool for determining this.

...but, if a religion requires delusion to exist, I believe it can safely be describe as delusional. Those religions that do NOT require magical thinking I would not call delusional. But which religions are those?

except i am at odds on this statement:
This is "delusion" in both the general and clinical sense.
so far right now it is not clinical... they do however touch on the religion aspect of the DSM.. it excludes it..for whatever reason...and isnt it just your opinion that:

The DSM was never designed to be applied to belief systems or groups, so it is not the appropriate tool for determining this.

clinically right now..religion is not included... when it is.. you wont hear a peep from me about this subject... but right now... all the clinicians that work with the mentally challenged do not include religion in their work...unless they are already examples of schizophrenia and paranoid delusion.

psychology does not analyze or treat groups. Once social dynamics come into play, as they must in religion (the "binding" that Human mentions), social psychology, sociology and history are the best means of studying them. Those disciplines have their own models of functionality, beyond the scope of a forum post.

and dont the

American psychological Association
American psychiatric Association
National Alliance for the Mentally Ill

use the clinical definition?

also the ICD is a tool the World Health Organizations uses and it uses pretty much the same definition doesnt it?


If we are to us a clinical definition i think that those Associations would have a workable definition. I mean it is what they do...work with the mentally challenged.
if you dont want to use those esteemed( :) ) bodies definitions what definition...clinical...would you use?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/08/2011 02:48PM by bignevermo.

And none of those organizations claim to diagnose groups, let alone a category of groups.

But you could compare religions to each other. For instance, I believe that you could gather data to develop something like a "cognitive dissonance index". Some groups will make a greater demand on the credulity of followers than others. Those are the most "delusional" ones.

Everybody has delusions. But somewhere the depth, frequency, whatever of the delusions crosses into the pathological. Pathological seems to be defined in terms of function...but while that could be evaluated in terms of individuals, it's harder to do so with groups.

I find it to be a fascinating topic and very timely, even if often frustrating.

when you say that a whole group is delusional...95% of humanity...
arent you saying...in the clinical sense that 95% of humanity is psychotic? most delusions...from what i read have to do with : hearing voices that are not there... acting upon those voices.. and other extreme cases and those are psychosis are they not?

A delusion is a false belief held with absolute conviction despite superior evidence.

if you take out:despite superior evidence.

you and i will agree...however if you leave that definition alone...you cant put religious people in the delusional category.
well maybe you can but i dont think that you will be accurate in your statement.

100% of human beings are delusional. This takes many forms, profound and trivial. I think I'm cute. I think you're fat. My country is greatest in the world.

"To err is human." That's what I'm saying. We all have our little superstitions and biases. If we have integrity, we try to learn and overcome those. We recognize that some are harmless and others are dangerous.

But insisting on a magical worldview...a reality where we perform rites and things happen in a supernatural realm...and maintaining and defending that against empirical data, is deliberately dissociating from reality. The intention is very disturbing. And an organization that would propagate and exploit that human tendency, to me is dangerous.

Think about how difficult it would be for a psychotherapist to treat a person who insisted on magical thinking. They would claim that they weren't praying hard enough, or they had committed sin, or they hadn't offered enough animal sacrifices, or they were possessed by an evil spirit, or cursed by an enemy. As long as they view the world in those terms, they can't recover from it. They can't even see their problem.

that is the crux of the definition of delusion:

A delusion is a false belief held with absolute conviction despite superior evidence.

where is the data that their is no..we will use god here as representative of religion...god

you see when you say someone is delusional in their belief in god...it is incumbent upon the claimant to prove that their delusion(god) is false.

where is the data?
that is why i said that if you use a definition without:despite superior evidence. you can call every one delusional but i dont think that meets any clinical definition...just an urban definition... see my point?
case closed!! :)
hehehe...just kidding...please repost! this is a much better way to communicate than what i have been going thru the last three bloody days! :)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/08/2011 03:54PM by bignevermo.

Friendly sparring is okay...we're on the same side, and it helps keep us on our mental toes. And, done right, it's fun.

Thanks for the discussion.

I think religion ought to come with a warning:-

Caution: Religion may be hazardous to your health.

help:
my mom every month makes food for Camillus House a Catholic Charity...
she also when my dad died joined the churches grieving group
which helped immensely!
so..i do not advocate religion and those services can be acquired thru secular means... religion isnt always harmful as noted by my examples here... i am sure there are more...not that the good takes away from the bad that happens in religion but a lot of the bad that happens in religion happens in the secular world too.

I'd give credit where it's due.

and for some reason a lot of those people are drawn to religion!! dont axe me why... they just seem to be...

. . . from the Big Skydaddy, that's delusional.

but you assume that is what all religious people do.
when you include all thats where ya get into trouble. Because you were raised in a faith that emphasized works over grace... i can see why that is your POV... but in the faith i was raised in...of which i am no longer a part(much to the consternation of dear ole ma) they already pretty much think they are gonna go to heaven so the works they did were not for entry into heaven they do good works for the sake of helping others.

But if they build homes for the homeless so that the builders can get their own mansion in heaven . . .

If religious folks who believe in God, along with little children who believe in Santa, do nice things out of fear and faith in some imaginative Super Hero, they are both still deluded in that belief.

...who gives a shit, just as long as houses for the poor get built and the kids shut their trap after all that Halloween candy.

The motivation is less important than the action. Belief is less important than behaviour.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/08/2011 04:33PM by steve benson.

they're just wanting to do good for others.
That was what biggie's post said. It's as if you didn't read it.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/08/2011 04:47PM by steve benson.

how many time have you said religion has no utility at all..or something along those lines?
are you actually saying that religion does some good?
i am waiting for this one with baited breath!

you also say: religioud people do nice things out of fear

again you are assuming people DO things out of fear...people(religious) people DO things out of fear?... no some may NOT do some things out of fear... but DO things out of fear? anghhh wrong answer. perhaps in the paradigm you are used to... but not IMHO MOST religious people dont DO things out of fear.
just sayin!

HY-Yo Silver Away!! :)

and yo Baddy thanks for your input and support!

and Steve there ya go again with the insults..(if YOU can't read) obviously she can read...also she said..it's as IF you didnt read... and sometimes it does seem like you dont read posts... but i am pretty sure that you do.
just sayin



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 12/08/2011 05:40PM by bignevermo.

This is what is delusional about it:

"a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a SUPERHUMAN agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." (emphasis added)

Sound familiar? It should. You posted that definition in this very thread.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/08/2011 05:42PM by steve benson.