Let's get the input of mental health professionals

[skepticscott]

Since the other thread has become somewhat of a morass.

Here's the question: Does the fact that a belief or behavior is religious in nature or motivation automatically preclude it from being diagnosed as any type of mental disease, defect or disorder? Or do religious reliefs and behavior have to be evaluated by the same criteria as all others to determine whether or not they qualify as mental disease, defect or disorder?

To clarify, what is being asked is NOT whether religion in general is a mental illness, or whether all religious beliefs and behaviors qualify as mental illness. Those claims are not being made here. The question is whether it is possible for any religious belief or behavior, when evaluated by a trained professional, to qualify as mental disease, defect or disorder.

[ladjf]

1. Check out the DSM5. You will find the answer to your question. nt

[skepticscott]

4. Well, I've been told

that since I'm not a mental health professional, I'm not qualified to interpret the DSM. So I'm leaving it to people who are to convey the answer.

[ladjf]

5. OK. I'll give you a hint, check out the ten symptoms of histrionic behavior. nt

[skepticscott]

6. Either post a substantial reply or not

But don't waste bandwidth.

[rug]

15. There's a new criterion for personality disorders as well.

Failure to develop effective interpersonal functioning.

[Fumesucker]

40. There are days I think that definition would cover 90% of DU.. n/t

[mike_c]

2. I still prefer the working hypothesis that religious faith is acceptance of delusions...

...but I'm willing to consider the alternative hypothesis that it's simply pathological gullibility.

[rug]

16. How many bias-laden hypotheses do you usually employ?

[safeinOhio]

3. Ask 10 different professionals

and you'll get 10 different answers.

[Happyhippychick]

7. I'll venture an answer, I'm a shrink

I don't spend much time on diagnoses, I see them as an avenue for my patients to collect insurance (which I do not accept in my practice) or as a type of larger framework which may explain certain behaviors. I try not to pigeonhole my patients into a diagnosis for a variety of reasons, mostly because I find it gives me assumptions which may be inaccurate and doesn't necessarily take into account that people can change.

When I am diagnosing someone I am looking at their capacity to function happily, safely and productively in society. That's what it comes down to in my eyes, a diagnosis is merely an explanation as to why someone may not be able to achieve all that they wish to in their life. Certain diagnoses are easier to overcome than others.

If someone is able to function safely, happily and productively in society then their religiosity wouldn't have any bearing on whether they have any kind of underlying diagnosis. Those religious guys who handle snakes and won't get medical help if they are bitten, I would say that they are delusional if they believe that god is going to protect them from a snake bite. But if that same guy is not taking risks with his life because of his religion I wouldn't think that there is a diagnosis at all.

I know you aren't asking whether religion is a mental illness, you are asking whether religion precludes diagnosis. I would say "no." But as someone else so astutely pointed out, ask 10 people and you'll get 10 different answers.

[skepticscott]

8. Thanks for your response

I tried to make the question(s) fairly straightforward (is something precluded or not, is something automatic or not), so if I get 10 different answers to what are essentially either/or questions, I would suspect most of them of dodging or dissembling. Ten different explanations for the answers, I could see.

[Brettongarcia]

26. Religion, Christianity, pressures medical professionals in the US; a long answer

Christian religion applies pressure to medical practitioners, in the USA

In America we have freedom of religion, technically. Our founders witnessed many of the abuses that happen when religions pressure their populations, and take over the government; to force their religious beliefs on others. Having seen too many historical examples of these abuses in the 17th century, the founders allowed freedom of religion; but did not allow any any particular religion to control our government.

However, although our government itself is relatively insulated from religious takeovers, the general culture is not. “Freedom of religion” allows religion, Christianity, to do many things. Though religion is not allowed to break laws, and force people physically to do things, religions in America are allowed to apply formal and informal social pressure, psychological pressure, to the population. To persuade people to follow them. This power might seem relatively benign. But since 1980, these formerly informal powers have been systematically developed, and increased. By “culture warriors” in the “Culture war” for example. For some time we have seen church activism/pressure, even in clinical matters like abortion and so forth. (Cf. mental health).

Historically, religions are normally coercive: they so firmly believe what they believe, that they typically fell they have the right to impose their “truths” on others - by whatever means available. In earlier times, religions controlled governments - and could simply execute dissenters say, as “heretics.” Such violent imposition is today illegal in the US (if not some Arab countries). Yet in spite of that, there are still many avenues by which churches still assert their power. In a normal small community for example, there are informal social pressures: everyone say, belongs to one church or another. And there is informal social, peer pressure, to conform to one church, or the other. But in recent decades, from around the 1980's, churches began to attempt to systematically increase this; to increase the means by which they could apply pressure on every element of American society. Organizations like the Christian Coalition began condemning to their parishioners, TV shows it didn't like, and informing advertisers of it. They also began supporting believers to begin speaking up at public and professional meetings. By these methods, religious forces began attempting to persuade the public on even medical issues … like say, abortion.

Have such pressures, open and covert, been applied say to the medical and psychological professions? In every culture, there are constant informal pressures at least, from the population, to regard their own religion as sacred, true, and therefore, normative. (Though authors like the clinical author of "Faith or Delusion" warn about such things). Beyond that though, today the assaults by religious conservatives, on medical issues like abortion, are increasing.

Absolutely this is an issue today in states like Texas; where various religious-based antiabortion groups pressured legislators to pass bills restricting abortion - on “medical” grounds. Requiring that abortion doctors are registered with local hospitals. And that patients see an ultrasound showing their fetus; while doctors are forced to deliver a speech describing the fetus as having a “beating heart.”

Clearly there is religious pressure being applied, even systematically, on medical practitioners today. And though local and state medical boards have partially resisted, at present religious political candidates are gaining ground, and power. In Texas for example, radical (Catholic?) conservative anti-abortionist Dan Patrick (Irish?) has apparently just become the Republican candidate for Lt. Governor.

[Leontius]

9. This was answered fully in the thread you seem to have fled from.

[skepticscott]

10. Then you should have no trouble

linking to the full and complete answer.

Proceed.

[Warren Stupidity]

11. I just posted about this as well.

The short answer is that the DSM does a massive carve out for "religious beliefs that are widely held". These beliefs fit all the other requirements to be classified as delusions within the DSM, except they are "widely held". It is special pleading.

[skepticscott]

12. Well, as I just posted there

the DSM-V has changed that somewhat. And as some expert mental health professionals have professed, the DSM can be disagreed with and disregarded as it suits people.

[Warren Stupidity]

14. Your excerpt from DSM-V makes it even less clear to me what the distinction is.

At least under the DSM-IV definition the carve out made it clear. Dubious, but clear.

[Brettongarcia]

13. That might allow the APA to condemn "cults" however; religious beliefs not so widely held

Last edited Fri Mar 7, 2014, 10:23 AM - Edit history (1)

And then, when we discover that all religions are to a degree, from a temple "cultus" ...

On the APA and cults: http://www.apa.org/monitor/nov02/cults.aspx

[el_bryanto]

17. I'm not a mental health professional, but it strikes me that the answer has to be yes

I will also comment that while you aren't making the claim that religious belief in general is a mental illness/delusion, you are presumably aware that other anti-theists are.

Bryant

[Brettongarcia]

18. But the aim here is more limited. So? Here's Psych warning about SOME delusions in Religions:

From the Journal of Psychiatric practice:

"Faith or delusion? At the crossroads of religion and psychosis.
Pierre JM.
Author information
Abstract
In clinical practice, no clear guidelines exist to distinguish between "normal" religious beliefs and "pathological" religious delusions. Historically, psychiatrists such as Freud have suggested that all religious beliefs are delusional, while the current DSM-IV definition of delusion exempts religious doctrine from pathology altogether. From an individual standpoint, a dimensional approach to delusional thinking (emphasizing conviction, preoccupation, and extension rather than content) may be useful in examining what is and is not pathological. When beliefs are shared by others, the idiosyncratic can become normalized. Therefore, recognition of social dynamics and the possibility of entire delusional subcultures is necessary in the assessment of group beliefs. Religious beliefs and delusions alike can arise from neurologic lesions and anomalous experiences, suggesting that at least some religious beliefs can be pathological. Religious beliefs exist outside of the scientific domain; therefore they can be easily labeled delusional from a rational perspective. However, a religious belief's dimensional characteristics, its cultural influences, and its impact on functioning may be more important considerations in clinical practice. "


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15990520

[el_bryanto]

19. yeah i saw that over in Warren's post.

i don't know whether the point to this thread (and that other one) is that "Some religious folk suffer from mental illness which may express itself in their religious beliefs" or "Religious belief may be a symptom of delusional thinking which could lead to deeper psychological problems." If it's the former, I can't argue with it.

If it's the latter, than we should discuss the implications of that theory.

Bryant

[Brettongarcia]

21. It's the former. But this quote also allows criticism of parts of religion

So as far as the Psychiatric community is concerned? We should be allowed to criticize many elements of Religion. Even whole religions it often seems. (And off topic, but if necessary, it seems, all of religion)

To be sure, the world of all of "Psychology," including the APA is not going for all of religion, or whole religions. But it seems that the subfield of specifically "Psychiatry," Freud-based studies, does that.

So our first conclusion should be that 1) at least the world of Psychiatry, specifically, allows criticism of parts of religion at least.

The next question: 2) do everyday people really allow it?

And if not, why not?

Is religion sacred? Per se, as far as most people are concerned? Even as far as the conservative Psychological community goes?

And if so, is that right?

[el_bryanto]

23. It depends on how wide you want to throw open the net.

If you feel like all of religion or whole religions should be criticized in psychological terms, I'm not likely to go along with that.

Should they be allowed to - well people should be allowed to write and advance any argument they want. And do.

I'm pretty sure though that I wouldn't visit a psychiatrist who believed that religious belief is a mental disorder and attempted to treat believers for this condition. And I guess that's what you mean by everyday people allowing it. As long as believers make up a fair amount of the "market" for psychiatry than it seems unlikely they will change that classification.

But of course some religious believers do suffer from psychological problems, which may manifest through their beliefs.

Bryant

[skepticscott]

20. Well, if any anti-theists are saying

that every religious belief and every behavior motivated by religion is some type of mental disease or defect, they are demonstrably wrong in that assertion. But if anyone has a problem with such overarching claims, they need to take that up with the people actually making them, rather than dishonestly trying to attribute such claims to posters on this board, and using that silly strawman to advance their arguments.

[el_bryanto]

22. I'll try and bring it to your attention the next time i see a blanket smear of religion

as being crazy.

By the way did you ever find those instances where I've been "an apologist and defender of the horrible abuses and wrongs perpetrated by religion?" Again not religion itself but specifically the horrible abuses and wrongs perpetuated by it?

Bryant

[skepticscott]

24. "Crazy" is used in a more common and general sense that doesn't imply mental illness

Saying that cutting food stamps is "crazy" or "insane" doesn't mean that the people advocating it are actually mentally ill, only that what they're advocating makes very little sense. Most people, you included, I'll wager, use the phrase "that's crazy!" or "they're crazy" or something to that effect without meaning that actual mental illness is involved.

Do you get the distinction?

[Starboard Tack]

27. Nothing crazy about redefining every word to suit your agenda, is there?

Now, please define "dissembling", or redefine it. Can't wait. What a hoot you are, SS

[skepticscott]

28. If you can point out a word that I've "redefined", go ahead

I won't hold my breath. I reported on common definitions and usage of "crazy", and pointed out the simple truth that not all of them have to do with mental illness:

crazy[ krey-zee ]
adjective [cra·zi·er, cra·zi·est.]
1. mentally deranged; demented; insane.
2. senseless; impractical; totally unsound: a crazy scheme.
3. intensely enthusiastic; passionately excited: crazy about baseball.

Of course, you're well aware of that, so why you'd stick your head out to post something so lame is a mystery.

Well, OK...not really.

[Starboard Tack]

29. And of course you always intend definition number 3 when referring to believers.

Do you really think anyone buys your attempts to reinvent yourself as a tolerant individual?

Not much seems to have changed since I last popped my head in to see how you were doing. Very sad.

[skepticscott]

31. What a piece of work you are

Where have I tried or needed to "reinvent" myself? I'm sure you'll have as much trouble showing us that as you did showing us words that I've "redefined".

And nowhere is this about anywhere that I've used the word crazy. I responded to a remark by someone else implying that saying religion is crazy amounts to saying that believers are mentally ill, by showing that the word can mean other things, including "senseless". Definition 2, if you didn't bother to read it. But of course you did. You read all of this, but you're still making shit up instead of sticking to the truth.

We're done here.

[Starboard Tack]

32. Quick question before I go, on the subject of delusional people and prayer.

How would you describe the mental state of someone who tries to communicate on a daily basis with a person who has not answered them in years and has made it quite clear that there will never be a response? You can pray to the gods for answers to your questions. Maybe they don't all have you on ignore.
Think about that SS. A little introspection never hurts.

[Brettongarcia]

34. God promised "all" the physical miracles we want, to "whosoever asks" or prays (John 14.12 ff)

But the promised physical miracles, "all" we "ask" for even now, don't come. Not even to the priests and ministers; the most devout believers.

What should believers have concluded, long, long ago?

Apologetically, liberal Christians tried to twist the old promises around, into spiritual metaphors. But that's not entirely honest. That's a word game; that's "twist"ing OT scripture, plainly.

[okasha]

37. Make that several persons

who will never respond to him. And at least one of his good buddies suffers from the same affliction.

[skepticscott]

41. If someone posts misinformation

nonsense, crap and outright lies, then I'll feel perfectly free to post a response showing it for what it is. If they choose not to reply, if they choose not to engage anything that upsets their agenda, if they choose to stick their fingers in their ears, that's their business. But the fact that their post is the one being responded to in no way means that the response is intended solely for them (or for them at all). There's a whole room full of people reading posts here, and if I have to respond to someone who personally has me on ignore in order to let the rest of the world know that they are uninformed, dishonest, hypocritical, and unworthy of being taken seriously, so be it.

I doubt you've thought that deeply about things, or that you'd admit it even if you had, but it's really not that difficult a concept.

[trotsky]

39. I don't know, ST, what would you call someone like that?

I put someone in this group on Ignore a long time ago, and told him outright I was doing so, yet he still replies to me regularly. Tell me what you think about him.

[Starboard Tack]

45. What would I call someone like that? Obsessed and delusional.

You must be clairvoyant, btw, to know someone you have on ignore is replying to you. Still trotting along faithfully , I see. Are you equally obsessed? I notice you directing similar questions into the void. What's that all about? Or do you "ditto" SS's reasoning? Exposing the evils of tolerance and all that good stuff.

[skepticscott]

46. It's not that hard, dude

You get notified when someone has replied to one of your posts, even if you have them on ignore. If you go to look at the reply and there's nothing there, that's how you know. DUH. No clairvoyance necessary. You really had no clue about that, did you? Or else you did, and still decided to try to be snarky.

And only a select group of arrogant people think that replies to their posts are intended only for them. The "void", as you so dismissively call it, consists of actual people, who read but may not post, and who should under all circumstances be dissuaded from taking certain people seriously.

Btw, you'd better stop diagnosing mental disorders in here. The psychology police will be all over you for that.

[trotsky]

47. Actually, DU tells you when someone you're ignoring replies to you.

No clairvoyance necessary. But it's good to have you on record with that statement. Thanks, ST! That will be a helpful bookmark in the future.

Sure, my reasoning is similar to that of scott's. If someone says something I think needs correcting, I'll do so. Especially when that person is a flaming hypocrite when it comes to scolding others for the exact same behavior they regularly engage in.

Of course, I don't recall any regular poster here telling me I was being placed on ignore, so I have no idea who is or isn't reading my posts. Ignoring someone doesn't mean you get to censor what they have to say to others. My ignoree is free to say whatever he wants! He knows exactly what he needs to do to let me see his posts again; I made it quite clear when I put him on ignore.

Glad we could have this chat, ST. Of course if you need to fling more snark and snide remarks, go right ahead. I won't be reciprocating, though! I'm trying to raise the level of discourse - I won't let you drag me down.

[Starboard Tack]

49. Peachy! Good to know you're in lockstep with SS

Wouldn't want him to get lonely out there. Keep up the high level of discourse on the mental health of believers. We are all enthralled by your insight.
NB Obviously, I am not familiar with the ignore feature. I learned long ago, that turning out the lights at night does not make the roaches go away.

[trotsky]

50. It is sad you feel the need to compare fellow DUers to roaches.

I don't think that raises the level of discourse. Nor does claiming people are in "lockstep." Scott and I disagree about plenty, as do pretty much any two people on any given subject. I'd like to see you make more of an effort to speak about others respectfully. Perhaps it could lead to better communication between us?

Are you willing to try?

[Starboard Tack]

51. Let me ask you a question

How would you respond to someone who continually insults you, your wife and other members of your family? Someone who lies abut them, baits and provokes them, berates them for their tolerance and understanding?
You can try to distance yourself from SS, yet your posts speak for themselves. You follow him around, cheering him on as he attacks decent human beings who are actually trying to make positive changes in this world. There was a time when I thought you might be different, but that was long ago.
You ask if I'm willing to try. Try what? You want me to play nice to people who piss on everything decent? Have a nice day!

[trotsky]

52. I guess it depends on how that person, their spouse, and their family have treated them.

Don't you think?

Insults and personal attacks are against DU rules. Such posts should be alerted on.

The other terms you use - "lies," "bait," and "provoke" - those are highly subjective. Look at what you're saying about skepticscott and me - I might very well consider those lies. I don't follow scott around; we are both posters on DU and enjoy some of the same topics. We're bound to see each other on various threads and - shockingly - might just agree a fair portion of the time! Why do you feel the need to attack and use loaded, insulting terms? Why not defuse the situation instead of throwing more gasoline on the fire?

Baiting? Provoking? Look at your shtick. You throw out coy statements like "I only attack bigots" to justify your abusive behavior. If you want others to stop pissing on what you consider decent, perhaps you should cease urinating as well.

[Starboard Tack]

53. Are you saying that my wife and her father have mistreated you in some way?

Considering the fact that she has had no communication with you or your mentor in years, that indicates some pretty odd sensitivity on your part. She has no interest in either of you, nor discussing your posts with me. Believe it or not, DU rarely crops up in our conversation. Occasionally, I spot one of you sniping at her and point it out, but she couldn't care less as she has you all on ignore, a feature I have never used. I like to see who's pissing on my deck. If you really want to raise the tone of civility around here, quit with smears and address those who want to communicate with you. Trying to provoke those you alienated long ago will get you nowhere.

[trotsky]

54. Well that's great to know, she never told me a thing about being ignored.

I have absolutely no idea what I did to earn it, as she never bothered to inform me. But I will continue to reply to anyone that I feel like. Neither you nor she can control or censor me. Others have a right to know when people's actions don't match their words, particularly when that person goes on to scold and berate others for not adhering to standards that they disregard for themselves.

And again I would request you refrain from using inflammatory, baiting words like "mentor." Just stop it. Raise the tone. I have engaged in no such sniping against you in this subthread. If you see a post of mine that you regard as a "smear," please point it out and stop making unsupported accusations.

[rug]

55. Leading contender for the 2014 DU Disingenuity Award.

[Starboard Tack]

56. You are welcome. Apparently you are in very good company.

So don't mind me poking my nose in here every now and then to see how you are all behaving. Remember, when I see you making these personal attacks, and/or endorsing the attacks and smears of SS and his supporters, I will call you on it. Why do you find the term "mentor" inflammatory? Surely you don't see yourself as his mentor. Dawkins forbid!
Now, how do you get the notion that someone who ignores you is trying to control you? You see, that's how you try to smear people. Pretty sad.
As for myself, I have no desire to control you. Do you control your children or monitor their behavior? There's a big difference. You can't stop who they hang out with, but you can influence their choice of role models. Part of overcoming one's own bigotry, is confronting one's own hypocrisy. We are all hypocrites and bigots, to one degree or another. What's important is, whether we revel in it or we work through it.

[trotsky]

58. *sigh*

Well, I tried. I gave you a chance and you chose to take the path of insults and attacks.

ST, I have decided to put you on Ignore. Should you ever feel like apologizing for your smears, feel free to have someone else message me so I can see your response.

Once you're on my ignore list, it should be interesting to see if you continue to respond to me, since that would be classifying yourself according to post #45.

Good bye.

[cleanhippie]

60. It's actually quite sad that he only knows how to act that way.

Passive-aggressive behavior is difficult to break, so I feel for him.

[Starboard Tack]

61. As the poster boys for passive aggressive behavior, the 3 of you should learn what it is

You love to sling shit around here, insulting anyone and everyone who disagrees with your nasty bigoted remarks. Trust me there is nothing passive about my feelings toward any one of you.

[cleanhippie]

62. As I said, it's really sad.

Good luck with that.

[cleanhippie]

59. More Passive-aggressive bullshit.

[cleanhippie]

57. How much Passive-Aggressive bullshit can you spew at once?

As is told to your wife many times over, BE the change you want to see. Until you drop your handful of mud and step out of the cesspool...

[Brettongarcia]

30. Skeptic Scott: thanks for your efforts; keep up the good work. Regarding equivocal meanings:

Most scholars know that the language of the Bible itself, is equivocal; it plays games by switching from the literal to metaphorical/spiritual meaning, when it suits it.

So when Jesus promises us "water," or "bread"? At times that means 1) literal water, or bread. But other times? 2) The spiritual "water" or bread of his saving word.

When Christians accuse critics of equivocality between different definitions, it is the pot calling the kettle black.

Or "hypocrisy."

[Brettongarcia]

25. Most people are limiting their claims, here on this specific board/post. As requested

So the real matter here, is probably to hint that after all, there is however, a common emotional resistance to ANY criticism of Religion. (From a misunderstood idea of say Freedom of Religion?).

Especially, there is a natural attachment to one's OWN religion; and resistance to criticism of at least, OUR religion.

So if some of us are experiencing difficulties advancing criticisms of religion? It may be that familial emotional, sentimental, irrational ties, are partly what is blocking critical efforts.

On this blog, it often seems that nobody's religion is sacred ... except your own, of course. Particularly on this blog, liberal religion.

Most believers here will allow bashing Fundamentalists. But say Liberal Religion? Suddenly everyone is emotional defensive. THIS kind of criticism is resisted, at an emotional, pre-logical level.

So perhaps we need to address this emotionality. As hindering objective discussion.

[Brettongarcia]

48. That subject is not appropriate THIS post; but see very long & exhaustive "Religion=Delusion" post

On the possibility that most - even "all" - religion is "delusion"

[goldent]

33. I expect it is the same

as any other belief where there is no evidence. If it is within the norms of the culture, you wouldn't think anything of it.

[skepticscott]

35. Well, there is a difference

between believing things without evidence, and continuing to cling to beliefs despite an overwhelming amount of contradictory evidence. Believing that there is intelligent life on other planets, despite no hard evidence of that (but also no evidence that it isn't true), is an entirely different thing than believing that the earth and all of the life on it were created less than 10,000 years ago.

[goldent]

36. I think you missed the part of my post about

the cultural norms. Believing in things for which there is no evidence is accepted if it is within the cultural norms. That would include belief in extra terrestrial life, it would not include the belief that extra terrestrial life visits your bedroom when you sleep and mismatches your socks (actually, I think I have some evidence of that, but I don't usually talk about it).

[skepticscott]

38. Yes, it may be culturally accepted

but the question remains whether, in the case of religion, it is simply politics or special pleading that automatically exclude a widely held and (clung to) belief with overwhelming evidence against it from being regarded as delusional (which means, in part, that it is immune or highly resistant to contrary evidence and argument), simply because it is religious in nature.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

42. No, that's not the question

You say, "Here's the question: Does the fact that a belief or behavior is religious in nature or motivation automatically preclude it from being diagnosed as any type of mental disease, defect or disorder?"

The actual question is, "Is religious belief itself a type of mental disease, defect or disorder?"

[skepticscott]

43. Those are two different and distinct questions

I'm asking the first one here, and not the other, as stated for anyone with reading comprehension. I've answered the other one elsewhere.

If you want to ask the other question, feel free to start your own thread, but don't tell me what the fuck I'M asking here, unless you're just trying to stir shit.