How Do You Distinguish Between Religious Fervor and Mental Illness?

[trotsky]

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/mind-guest-blog/how-do-you-distinguish-between-religious-fervor-and-mental-illness/

It's not meant as insult to believers; the two states of mind can share many similar characteristics

...Take an example of a man who walks into an emergency department, mumbling incoherently. He says he’s hearing voices in his head, but insists there’s nothing wrong with him. He hasn’t used any drugs or alcohol. If he were to be evaluated by mental health professionals, there’s a good chance he might be diagnosed with a psychotic disorder like schizophrenia.

But what if that same man were deeply religious? What if his incomprehensible language was speaking in tongues? If he could hear Jesus speaking to him? He might also insist nothing were wrong with him. After all, he’s practicing his faith.

It’s not just the ambiguities of mental health diagnoses that create this problem—the vague nature of how we define religion further complicates matters. For example, the Church of Scientology argued with the Internal Revenue Service for years to be classified as a charitable religious organization and to qualify for tax-exempt status. The Church eventually won this battle in 1993, a major step towards becoming a mainstream American religion.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. When you talk to God you're praying.

When God talks to you it's schizophrenia.

[hrmjustin]

2. Agreed!

[trotsky]

3. So Moses was schizophrenic?

Who knew?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

4. Moses was a bronze-age myth,

but if I ran into some dude coming down from a mountain carrying stone tablets that he claimed God had given him, I'd definitely wonder about his sanity.

[Act_of_Reparation]

6. And every LDS President

A debilitating mental illness that presents in a fraction of a percent of the population, and yet somehow the LDS church raised 16 of them to their highest office in succession. Interesting.

[kimbutgar]

10. And don't forget jevhova( sp?) wutness

They are a loony bunch. Cult like. They stand on street corners for hours in all types of weather not saying a word with their signs. I had an aunt who became one when I was a kid. She became unbearable and crazy.

Sorry John the Baptist was insane.

[JNelson6563]

56. They are a publishing company

with a cult of dedicated employees. A very sad situation for the many children trapped inside.

[Bretton Garcia]

58. : )

Last edited Mon Dec 26, 2016, 07:07 PM - Edit history (1)

Jehovah's witnesses do hand out lots of tracts.

[Goblinmonger]

20. So the priests I knew growing up

that said god literally talked to them were schizophrenic?

I'd be called a bigot if I posted that.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

35. If they were actually hearing voices, maybe.

[rug]

39. I'd call you a liar rather than a bigot. If you actually said that.

I'd ask you to state specifically what the priest allegedly said and specifically what the priest allegedly said that God said.

I would disregard your psychiatric diagnosis because obviously you are unqualifed to make one.

[Bretton Garcia]

51. I talk to many priests. If memory serves...

I asked our local priest, standing in line at the local coffee shop, if he heard the voice of God. And whether it was just like, was, an audible voice. He insisted that it was. Much to everyone's amazement.

I've also talked to bishops, archbishops, cardinals. To be sure, they often seem somewhat less literal. But not consistently.

[rug]

59. Cool story.

I once used a urinal next to Christopher Hitchens and we discussed Mother Teresa.

[okasha]

63. Gustavo Gutierrez. Octavio Paz and I

once had a lengthy existential conversation while waiting in line outside a tortilla shop in Cuernavaca.

[rug]

64. What else could the subject be?

"I too await the coming of my hour, I too exist. No. I quit." - Visión del escribiente

[AtheistCrusader]

65. I've had Christian friends claim, to me, that they hear god's voice occasionally.

Most of them un-friended me over the election though, so, safe space around here.

[eppur_se_muova]

5. Question assumes there is a distiniction, which is probably the wrong place to start.

... the two states of mind can share many similar characteristics

... so maybe classifying them separately reflects only a prejudicial, arbitrary distinction ?

Believing religion is not a mental condition is like believing alcohol is not a drug.

[guillaumeb]

7. In time though, perhaps we will. I have faith.

Not my words, but the actual words of the author.

[trotsky]

9. It's confusing enough trying to make sense of people...

who claim to follow a religion of peace and forgiveness and honesty (Christianity, allegedly) but who are vicious, insulting, dishonest, and unrepentant.

But then, maybe that's what Christianity really is. Sadly I see lots of Christians behaving that way.

[guillaumeb]

12. Do non-Christians and non-believers also behave that way? eom

[trotsky]

13. Such weak sauce. You really don't have that many tools to use, do you?

They don't claim to be Christians now, do they? Do you think Jesus calls you to be a better person by being a Christian? Or do you prefer to follow the trite "Not perfect, just forgiven" approach where you can do whatever you want and just ask for forgiveness on Sunday?

[guillaumeb]

14. Such a weak sauce that you could not answer?

Understood.

[trotsky]

15. No, I won't answer your red herring question.

It's not pertinent. It's your attempt to change the subject, just like you always do. And when you find you've lost the argument on a thread, you'll pick out one element and start a new thread. It's your admission of defeat. Good golly you've done it enough it's obvious to everyone.

[guillaumeb]

16. Some people are obvious, some people are oblivious.

I like pickled herring, but have never tried red herring.

[trotsky]

19. QED n/t

[rug]

40. You're misusing that term.

[muriel_volestrangler]

42. In the USA, the behaviour is more associated with Christians

http://edition.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls/national/president

Protestant: Clinton 39%, Trump 56%
Catholic: 46%, 50%
Overall Christian: 41%, 54%

Jewish: 71%, 23%
Other religions: 62%, 29%
no religion: 67%, 25%
Overall non-Christian: 66%, 26%

So there's a pretty good correlation between immoral behaviour (voting for Trump) and being an American Christian.

[guillaumeb]

43. And a "pretty good correlation" can be contrived by ignoring the fact that

most Americans identify as Christian.

Eighty-three percent of Americans identify themselves as Christians. Most of the rest, 13 percent, have no religion. That leaves just 4 percent as adherents of all non-Christian religions combined — Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and a smattering of individual mentions.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=90356

Agreed?

Interesting attempt to answer my question.

[muriel_volestrangler]

44. No, not agreed. It's not 'contrived' in the least; it's a real correlation

Remember, most Americans voted for Hillary - by a margin of 2%. But most Christians (who were 75% of voters) voted for Trump, by a margin of 13%. And non-Christians voted for Hillary, by a margin of 40%. This doesn't 'ignore' that most Americans are Christian at all. It just shows there's a big difference between the typical Christian and the typical non-Christian. And the typical Christian voted for the bigoted, misogynistic, narcissistic, greedy arsehole.

[RKP5637]

79. K&R! n/t

[Bretton Garcia]

45. This psychiatrist says delusion and religion are hard to distinguish for now

Whether they can ever be distinguished is a matter, for now, of faith. And not reason or science psychiatry. Which, in this psychiatrist's account, find it hard to distinguish them.

By the way? "Religiosity" is now recognized as a typical symptom of schizophrenia and related disorders.

[guillaumeb]

46. If someone has decided that all religion is delusional,

that person is probably going to feel that all religious people are, in part at least, delusional.

And the reverse also could be true in religious societies.

Does that prove anything other than the mindset of the person making that judgement?

[Bretton Garcia]

47. So Guillaumeb rejects science and psychiatry, as his mindset?

[guillaumeb]

49. And where exactly did you read that?

If I point out what I see as the biases and /or limitations of a discipline, does that constitute a rejection of the entire discipline?

[Bretton Garcia]

52. You reject science when it examines religion

[guillaumeb]

60. I reject the idea that either can truly examine the other,

while rejecting neither in their proper places.

I hope that clarifies.

[Bretton Garcia]

61. The Bible supports science, over faith

I've showed that in a dozen ways here, already.

So the idea of separate and non overlapping magisteria or jurisdictions is simply wrong.

The Bible told us to scientifically examine, "test everything," in religion, according to its visible, physical fruits, works, signs, deeds, and proofs.

Just to clarify.

Lemaitre supported the Platonistic dualistic idea of separate areas for religion and science; spirit vs. matter. But I don't support Lemaitre et alia.

Neither does the Bible itself.

[guillaumeb]

69. On the other hand, I do agree with LeMaitre.

Happy holidays, or whatever you personally say at this time of year. I do enjoy the discussion.

[okasha]

54. Which psychiatrist are you referring to?

[Bretton Garcia]

57. The author. Stanford resident in Psychology

He also seems to accept or fit the term "psychiatrist." Since psychiatry is based on Freud. Who said "all religion is delusion."

His name is Nat P. Morris. Here's his bio in The Wall Street Journal, no less:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/why-im-becoming-a-psychiatrist-1454371033

[okasha]

62. No one is a psychiatrist until s/he has an MD

and the requisite internship and residency.

And it's been a long, long time since Freud was the dominant influence in the field.

[Bretton Garcia]

67. He says he's an MD psychology doctor

Soon to be an official shrink.

Since he's interning at the second best research hospital in the entire country, I give him full honorary status, before formal recognition.

Not too uncommon. An informal attribution anticipating a stellar career and assured acceptance into professional rank.

Apparently there are also other ways to get certified by major psychiatric agencies as well, without a medical degree. One of my old chums from Oxford got one in, I think, NYC.

[rug]

8. You always leave out the pertinent parts.

Last year, a news column circulated the web, announcing the American Psychological Association had decided to classify strong religious beliefs as mental illness. According to the article, a five-year study by the APA concluded that devout belief in a deity could hinder “one’s ability to make conscientious decisions about common sense matters.” Refusals by Jehovah’s Witnesses to accept life-saving treatments, such as blood transfusions, were given as an example.

Of course, this turned out to be a fake news story. But it still drew legitimate media coverage and outrage from readers. Fact-checking websites like Snopes had to point out the column was satirical.

I take it you also ignore that the two can indeed be distinguished. To hold otherwise is to be delusional.

[guillaumeb]

17. Fake news can serve an agenda as well as legitimate news.

Speaking generally, of course.

[Goblinmonger]

21. ones ability to make conscientious decisions about common sense matters.

So when people in Africa were convinced by the RCC to not use condoms? Why just pick on the Jehovah's Witnesses?

[rug]

37. That is one of your more incoherent deflections.

The article is about the delusion, often promoted here, that mental illness and religious belief is indistinguishable.

It's not about Africa. It's not about condoms. It's not about Jehovahs's Witnesses. Feel free to start a thread on any or all of those topics. It ain't here.

[tonedevil]

22. Always doing what...

you accuse others of. There is more pertinence right below the part you highlighted.

To many, this was a ridiculous stunt. But for me, a physician specializing in mental health, the satire hits home in many ways. My colleagues and I often care for patients suffering from hallucinations, prophesying, and claiming to speak with God, among other symptoms—in mental health care, it’s sometimes very difficult to tell apart religious belief from mental illness.
Part of this is because the classification of mental illness often relies on subjective criteria. We can’t diagnose many mental health conditions with brain scans or blood tests. Our conclusions frequently stem from the behaviors we see before us.

[guillaumeb]

23. So if you see a dysfunctional behavior, would you look for the cause?

What if an overtly religious person fits in to society, works a job, relates well with others, exhibits all of the criteria that we use when judging normal behavior?

Is that person suffering from some sort of delusion?

It seems to me that your above description applies to non-functional people.

[tonedevil]

24. I'm simply pointing out...

that the article linked to in the OP isn't from a fake news site nor is it a satire. I also wanted to point out that the person saying the OP didn't post the rest of the story was doing exactly what they were accusing the OP of doing. If you thought I wrote the block quote I think you might do yourself a favor and read the linked story.

[guillaumeb]

25. I read the story.

And that I see no connection between religious belief and dysfunctional behavior.

[tonedevil]

28. Then you must have recognized...

the quoted text as from the story. That was my entire point.

[rug]

38. His difficulty in diagnosis is his, not psychiatry's.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3705681/

Maybe he should be less ethnocentric.

[FiveGoodMen]

11. Tomato, tom-ahh-to

[guillaumeb]

18. Tom-ahh-to, of course. eom

[guillaumeb]

26. Also from the article:

From the article:

In 2006, biologist Richard Dawkins published his book The God Delusion, in which he characterizes belief in God as delusional. Dawkins cites the definition of a delusion as “a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence, especially as a symptom of a psychiatric disorder.”

Typical Dawkins' overblown nonsense.
Until Dawkins, or anyone can prove that belief in a god or a Creator is false, he fails in his claim. What is delusional, in my view, is treating Dawkins' expression of his personal, non-professional opinion as proof of anything other than his evident propensity for making such statements.

[trotsky]

30. Prove that I don't have an invisible dragon in my garage.

I just LOVE the fits that Dawkins gives certain types of believers, though.

[guillaumeb]

33. How big is your garage?

And how small is the dragon?

[trotsky]

34. The dragon is able to change its size to fit any garage.

Next question.

[okasha]

66. It's unlikely if the neighbors haven't called animal control.

Or the fire department.

[Bretton Garcia]

74. Since the Dragon is invisible and beyond science?

Only a priest can see it, verify it, and deal with it.

Priests though are very expensive. In exchange for them handling invisible and immaterial things for you, they want you to give up everything you have to them.

[guillaumeb]

76. Invisible to the human eye does not mean beyond science. eom

[Bretton Garcia]

82. It must be visible on instruments

Otherwise, having no empirical verification in hard - and ultimately visible - data, it can be regarded as only theory

[guillaumeb]

83. At least detectable on instruments.

Unless the dragon exists in a space between two universes.

[Bretton Garcia]

84. That would be Theory Dragon; not Factual Dragon

Unless the space between two universes has been verified by experimental/empirical data, at best we are dealing with Scientific THEORY, not established scientific FACT

At best it's an heuristic construction.

[rug]

41. If you're saying you have an invisible dragon in your garage I'd first note the irony of your OP.

Then I'd tell you to prove it. It shouldn't be hard since both dragons and garages have material characteristics.

[Bretton Garcia]

48. Not an invisible spirit dragon

Last edited Sat Dec 24, 2016, 08:00 AM - Edit history (1)

In some accounts, since they are immaterial spirits, they cannot be verified, seen, by the eyes, or detected by science.

[okasha]

68. The keeping of wild animals is generally prohibited

in urban areas. One need only call the proper authorities and report keeping of said very dangerous wild animal to discover whether there is one in a person's garage.

[guillaumeb]

70. It might be a miniature domesticated dragon.

Useful for starting fires.

[okasha]

71. Which would create a hazard if kept in proximity

to volatile hydrocarbons, eg., gasoline.

Better call the fire department, too.

[guillaumeb]

72. And call a zoo?

Qui ne passeront pas?

[okasha]

73. An animal rescue organization, more likely.

Les fascistes ne passeront pas.

[guillaumeb]

75. On espere, mais Trump est

un vrai cauchemar pour les gauchistes.

[Oneironaut]

27. Christian delusional, magical thinking is accepted because it is culturally acceptable.

One may believe that she heard the voice of a resurrected dead man from 2000 years ago, that she may cause favorable outcomes by either communicating telepathically with or asking out loud favors to a being who lives in the clouds, believe that she is constantly being watched by said being, and join others who believe the same dellusuon so long as these delusions are culturally accepted.

Replace God with a purple moon dragon named "Taco," and you would be ridiculed, if not committed. If hundreds of millions of other people had the same irrational, ridiculous belief, the madness of believing such a thing would be immediately overlooked.

[tonedevil]

29. I want a...

purple moon dragon named Taco. It can come with me to dog friendly brew pubs.

[trotsky]

31. Well I can't prove you don't already have one of those,

so go ahead and claim you do! It's all good!

[tonedevil]

32. If I go to my brew pub...

and explain that I have a purple moon dragon with me and they are to address it as Taco I think I will be cut off before I start.

[Skittles]

36. I don't

[Iggo]

50. This.

[Emilybemily]

53. You can't

They are the same thing

[JNelson6563]

55. They are one in the same.

So I don't quibble over semantics. Same shit, different label.

[HassleCat]

77. We allow far more antisocial behavior from the religious.

For example, parents who beat their children, denied them medical care, refused to send them to school, and so on, would be jailed for child abuse. But we can't touch them if they do all this because Jesus told them to do it.

[RKP5637]

78. I'm not a religious person in the least. When little, our minister told us he loudly heard god call

him to be a minister and shook his shoulder. I always wondered about that as a tiny kid, like WTF!

[doc03]

80. They are one of the same IMHO nt

[pbmus]

81. When you vote for a Trumpster because your religion

Told you to, you are mentally ill....