This thread is mostly to satisfy my own curiosity about the subject that has been discussed on the board over the course of several days, centering around the issue of whether religious beliefs are delusional. I haven't read all of the threads pertaining to this issue, so I apologize if this has been discussed already.

In one of the threads, RAG made an interesting point that really stuck with me. "In other words, if a delusion is shared it's a religion. If not, it's a delusion. Pfffft. Somebody's playing politics with pathology, and that is NOT good science." ( http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,356585,356619#msg-356619 ) Which demonstrates the issue with properly defining a term that is directly applicable to this discussion, and this brings me to the question that I have, because the issue is still quite hazy for me.

As it stands now, and as pointed out by RAG, many flawed and irrational beliefs are not considered delusional in the clinical sense; however, they are considered delusional by people on this board. Be they Mormon beliefs, Christian beliefs, Muslim beliefs, Scientologist beliefs, ad infinitum. For clarification, which term is being used, delusion as it pertains to clinical diagnosis, or delusion as it pertains to intellectual discussion? I.E "they're crazy." If it is being used in the clinical sense, what is the purpose of using it in such a way?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/07/2011 02:52AM by Strykary.

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,358826



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 12/07/2011 02:58AM by steve benson.

However, I hesitate to call it clinical delusion because of the ramifications that come with it. Clinical terms are pejorative in nature and imply that someone is broken and in need of fixing.

thingsithink touched upon this in a far more facetious tone, but the poster covers my concerns very clearly.

"Will there be a medication to treat religion induced delusion (or visa versa)? :) If so, will it be proper to drop a tablet in the church punchbowl?"
( http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,357028 )



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/07/2011 12:33PM by Strykary.

Here's the thing. Religion can't be delusional. Delusional applies to a person's belief. A religion might be built on completely falsehoods. But to answer the question of delusion, you have to look at the individual and their relationship with the particular religion. You could say that a person who believes any falsehood (related to a belief system that is considered a religion) is delusional. That's a pretty broad definition.

You might want a more restrictive definition, which I assume the clinical definition is, that talks about an individuals belief that is more than simply believing in something that is "false" but that is also damaging to the individual and those around him.

I think hardline believers in the major religions are delusional in the broadest definition. But there are definitely some people with very open, moderate views about religion - not the God of judgment, nothing like the mormon God - that may believe something that is ultimately false, but it is not destroying their lives. It could even provide something positive in their life.

So, while it seems to me a person could reasonably conclude that religions are false, in order to decide whether an individuals beliefs related to that religion are delusional, you'd have to talk to the individual to understand their belief about the religion - and then plug that individual into whatever definition of delusional you are using.

Similarly, we all believe things that are false - and we don't know it. So, we are all delusional. I see that as unavoidable. I think the moral of the original link was, we can see others delusions, but not our own. I think that's true. But why stop at religion? Isn't that arbitrary?

. . . if for no other reason that religion fosters, promotes, inculcates and perpetuates delusional beliefs.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 12/07/2011 03:39AM by steve benson.

Generally speaking - agreed. The building blocks of religion are false (if the story behind the religion is the building blocks). So, to believe something that is false to be true . . . is -- "delusional" in a broad sense of the word. I think it makes sense for anyone coming from a dogmatic religious past to stop the analysis right there. Because many of the arguments about grades of "delusion" relate to arguments that church's use to keep people in - things like "it's a great fraternity, though."

And, I do think the religion matters. There is a liberal version of Christianity that exists - I saw it firsthand. You could not even compare it to mormonism, or the Bachman brand of christianity. I'm sure many in the church of my youth never believed Jesus rose from the dead or walked on water - even some or all of the preachers. Evolution seemed a given to most. Any beliefs that I may have held sometime during my childhood - it was never anything I had to break free from. I didn't have to figure out how to tell my parents I was no longer in. I just slept in. I didn't worry what my friends would think if I didn't go to church. I Never worried about God punishing me for anything. I never conceived of or even heard of God in that context.

So, did I hold some delusional beliefs? Could be. Did it cause any problems for me. Nope. Any pressures? No. Confessions. No.

On the whole, I agree with your point. I came from something so polar opposite to the mormon church that to my eyes there are actually better religions - that there is good delusion and bad delusion. But I'm really on the statistical margins. My experience is probably not very representative of the typical religious experience. I think I was lucky.

"damaging to . . . those around him."

"Did it cause any problems for me[?]"

But your narrow definition includes harm to others too.

How broadly or narrowly are "others" or "harm" to be defined.

Who gets to decide?

Are there religions that have never caused harm to others?

How close or distance does that "other" have to be before a "delusion" is entitled to the religious exemption?

How damaging does the harm to oneself or others have to be before a "delusion" is entitled to the religious exemption?

how about you lulu? show me the definition.

things that make ya go hmmmmmmmm

You're right on with all of your questions. I love 'em. Obviously, once you go down that road, which I have and it sounds like you have too, you are not going to have well-defined answers. You're entering the ambiguous, amorphous arena. To me, that's what life is. You end up with a lot of questions and very few answers.

Its a lot easier to just say if someone believes in something false they are delusional. A seemingly bright line. But I think a more subtle definition followed by your list of questions leads a person to more of an understanding of the topic.

By the same token, I'm comfortable considering "delusion" from as many different definitions as people would like to work from. It just causes you to look at people, religion - the interaction - more deeply, IMO. Of course, I'm not looking for "right" answers, just interesting viewpoints and maybe some ideas that I can try out in my daily life. See what works and what doesn't.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/07/2011 03:04PM by thingsithink.

Well said.

Two examples of delusion, not related to religion.

My sons were in karate, and the studio offered t-shirts for sale. We bought them, along with lots of other karate students. Three months later, they sold a different shirt. The first shirt was still perfectly fine. We didn't buy the new shirt, but most people did. This happened every three months for a year, and people bought the shirts everytime. Was the new shirt better? Did anyone need the new shirt? Did they buy the shirt because everyone else was?
Delusion: I need a new shirt to fit in to the karate studio

Next, In post WWI Germany, a huge campaign was put in motion to convince everyone in the country that Jews were the cause of the country's problems. This extended to the newspapers, newsreels, comic books, posters, even children's games. Although many Germans had never seen a Jew in their lives, they were taught to hate Jews.
Delusion: Jews are bad because the newspaper says they are.

presbyterian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Delusion: I need a new shirt to fit in to the
> karate studio
>

> Delusion: Jews are bad because the newspaper says
> they are.


Two More:

Delusion: Muslims are bad because the newspaper says they are.

Delusion: Sam Harris:

"I say somewhere in The End of Faith that if you can't imagine any situation in which depriving someone of sleep, playing loud music, water-boarding them - doing something which leaves no lasting physical damage other than making them exquisitely uncomfortable for the moment so that they talk - if you can't imagine a situation in which you'd be willing to do that or sanction that, then you're just not thinking hard enough. There are people who are intending to destroy the lives of millions, render cities uninhabitable - that's what's scary, frankly."


Andrew Sullivan responds:

"What the Bush administration did against mere suspects was not making anyone "uncomfortable for the moment". Try being deprived for sleep for weeks. Or subjected to deafening noise day and night where there is not even day or night. Or being waterboarded 183 times - that's a lot of 'moments.'"


Harris literally fantasizes, while Sullivan documents reality.

Some take their morality from fantasy; others document reality.

Human

religion is a delusion..clinically...which is what was being discussed...forget for a moment that you a wordsmith would actually say religion is a delusion...you have since said that religion is delusional ok...

lets see we can get a consensus on a definition... give it to me si vous plait. it dont have to be clinical.... let me see what we have to work with...
also you said this in another post Steve:

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

what definition will you accept?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/07/2011 10:29AM by bignevermo.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/07/2011 11:19PM by steve benson.

Because a religions beliefs in things like afterlife can't be proven or even demonstrated.

After there is some kind of consensus, we should probably discuss whether or not delusions are "bad" for people. It's likely that many delusions might help people. For example, the delusion that life will give me apples instead of lemons is probably delusional...but is this always a harmful delusion?

Maybe the word religion is wrong, or the word delusional is wrong. Maybe it should be religous belief is an illusion. Even then our brains can manifest most anything.
Imagination = image + nation.

So if the brain can dream it, it can achieve it. Even imagining that Jesus actually follows you around on a daily basis and is your constant guide, or that God and his son actually came down to earth and spoke to you personally in a grove of trees.

My problem I guess is when people refuse to see it in that light. It's true, it's true, it's true. And ya know, to them it is.

And to quote some scripture (lol) When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

Still a lot of children out there, then again being a child is lot easier than being an adult, and more fun.

i wish some of my "playmates" would chime in with their definition though!!

Steve is committed to making sure the definition of "delusion" includes religious beliefs. You won't get him to bite on any definition that doesn't include religious beliefs (even though I think he may have had a more open working definition early in the discussion). If you've escaped a crazy religion like mormonism (or mainstream christianity, etc.), I don't think you're that interested in looking for the exception to the rule. Makes sense to me. So, I think you're fighting a hopeless battle but you've made your point.

I've used all sorts of words to describe religious people - insane, crazy, delusions, child abusers, and so on. But, I'm always open to an individual who might participate in a crazy religion but not be crazy. Or just crazy enough to be entertaining. My wife has prayed every night I've known her, lights candles for dead people, sprinkles holy water wherever we move - but knows almost nothing about her church's doctrine. She would tell you she's catholic, but for her its really more of just a way to relax - coming from a childhood where Church was just a quiet, peaceful place in a crazy world where sometimes there was no food on the table. And if you told her you worshipped flying alligators, she'd think that was great.

In fact, she thinks I'm nuts that I even care or talk about the nutty mormons, nutty christians. She doesn't get it. Maybe I'm delusional. :)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/07/2011 03:21PM by thingsithink.

Psychology isn't generally concerned with hard facts. The main goal in psychology is to decide what is normal and help people achieve that. So, anything that is accepted by a large enough group of people cannot be classified by pschologists as pathological. So, a clinical delusion and an actual delusion would not need to be the same thing.

I would think that anything that people cling to all evidence to the contrary is a delusion.

That's how I define it too. Having false or unrealistic beliefs is delusional (which may or may not be further classified as delusional by psychologists).

I'm not a psychologist (maybe only a few on this board are, so their definition might be different when they are talking shop) so I'm not going to diagnose people according to some rules of a soft science.

Your post explains the process and provides a working definition that seems fairly straight forward. I can't figure out why bignevermo can't see the most common use of the word we keep explaining.

Come on deep thinkers. Come on logical atheists and masters or reason. Think hard. Why is bignevermo talking about the definition for "delusional?" Why?

I just perused the threads, and I may need to eat it, but I'm pretty damn sure Steve Benson started off one of the initial threads on delusion by using the clinical definition of delusion.

It sure seems to me that there is a lot of game playing going on - by those who value reason - and people avoiding the obvious questions being raised by bignevermo.

Let's not believe in things that don't exist, but let's not pretend that someone never introduced the clinical definition of delusion into the conversation. That's silly and weird.

If I'm wrong, tell me.

<SNORT>



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/07/2011 09:28PM by thingsithink.

I see him as allied with Hitchens' view that "religion poisons everything."

I am more of a Dennett, believing that we should study religion as a natural phenomenon.

These are two different perspectives of the same view. While I see religion as always somewhat delusional, I see all kinds of other human cognition as equally superstitious and biased.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/07/2011 11:15PM by steve benson.

+1

here is this good enough for y'all?
A delusion is a false belief held with absolute conviction despite superior evidence
can we agree?



thanks again Rag for the feedback on my annoying style(old) of writing ...hehehe...now if i can just get rid of these ellipses:)
and i thank you thingsithink...i can be very dogged sometimes :)
as can Steve... but at the same time not take myself too seriously!!
yippy kay yea!
k hope this thread is open tomorrow. :)
:)



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 12/07/2011 09:41PM by bignevermo.

Your definition is the exact definition wording they use on Wiki to describe the delusional psychological disorder.

I would say delusion is simply believing something without evidence. I just don't see the point of trying to decide if it is technically a definition associated with mental illness or not. It can be but maybe not.

We've already pointed out that psychology involves social acceptance of delusions.

So, we can agree on the word as used in every day language?

This reminds me of how frustrated I get when non-scientists use the word theory. I have to accept they might not be a scientist and recognize how the word is used in popular usage. Surely you can do the same.

Psychotherapy, or simply behavioral therapy, is what you're talking about.

The APA is still divided over the phenomenon of cults, witness the Margaret Singer affair. It is/was not politically correct to delve deeply or critically into. I hope that this will change.

One thing that makes this tricky is you can define delusional so many ways. It's almost impossible to say yes or no without agreement on the definition.

With that said based on my fuzzy definition of delusional I'm going to say no.

Some reasons why:

I don't think choosing faith is that crazy really. Human logical is awfully subjective and fallible. We often make wrong conclusions - we are wired to do so - hey if you get the flu after eating your favorite food your brain will likely conclude you were poisoned and wham you have a food aversion. I think a wrong conclusion is different than delusional.

I think the evidence of strong spiritual feelings is actually fairly compelling evidence that I don't fault anyone for deciding to go with. How do you really know if that strong internal feeling comes from you of from some force outside of you? Obviously pretty much all of us on this site go with "inside you", but deciding it comes from outside of you seems kind of reasonable - even though it is wrong.

Hundreds of years ago everyone thought the sun orbited the earth. I'm not going to define the entire world's population back then delusional, just wrong. They just had the wrong information, culture. I think there are significant parallels with religious belief.

I think part of being delusional is not taking cues from the society around you. So having mainstream beliefs for a given religious group doesn't seem delusional if that's what you are exposed to.

I don't think the 90%+ of Americans who believe is some type of religion/god are mentally ill. I think they are drawing somewhat reasonably and sane conclusions based on the information they have albeit wrong conclusions.

Religion can help answer a lot of really really difficult things in life. What's the point? Why problems? Fear of death? It's pretty understandable that people are going to believe things that help them feel comfortable and safe.

If you write a definition that paints the majority of people as delusional, then it is less likely you will get the big bucks.

The same thing often happens with cults, where there are definitions about cults involving size or "living prophet"... I find these definitions as unsatisfying. Using size, it would mean that there is some magic number where "n" is a cult, "n+1" is not a cult. Something with trying to use a "living prophet" sort of thing, One day the prophet is alive, it is a cult, the next day the prophet dies, it is no longer a cult. In both cases, the same ideas are amazingly viewed as different depending on things that have not changed the fundamental concepts of the organization.

To me the idea that the definition of what is delusional being dependent on how many people believe the idea is equally flawed.

To me, it seems that definitions of "cult" and "delusion" that are based on how many people are involved is simply to insulate the large number of people that believe in religion.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/07/2011 11:49PM by MJ.

If you kill millions you are war hero and likely the head of an entire nation. Similar thing. If no one else shares your view you are delusional. If millions share your beliefs it is a world view.

We make sense of our world in large part by what we are told about the world by those around us. People who are socially insulated from outside points of view whether through choice, or regional demographics, or a religion that prevents you from socializing with people of other religions, are more likely to share the view of those around them. People who live in an area where there is a wide variety of view points will be more accepting of other points of view and better able to compare and contrast different view points.

. . . Robert M. Pirsig, author of "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry Into Values":

“When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called a Religion.”



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/08/2011 12:15AM by steve benson.