It seems glaringly obvious to me that the majority of those in the field of psychology (or at least, the psychologists themselves) are somewhat dishonest, and inconsistently apply their own evaluations.
For example, if I say a 30 foot tall invisible gorilla is standing next to me, I'm accurately labeled to be delusional.
However, if I say there's an invisible man looking over the whole world that will take me to a magical place when I die, I'm simply labeled as religious.
How is it professionally honest to not diagnose religious beliefs as delusional? Furthermore, if I create the church of the invisible gorilla, am I no longer delusional?
Of interest, on wikipedia (which agrees with dictionaries I've checked): A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary. Is it because we must somehow produce evidence that there is no god (an impossible feat; you can only attempt prove existence of something like this, not the non-existence)? If so, how could the psychologist disprove the existence of the invisible gorilla?
This post isn't really an attack on religion itself per se, but from a purely objective standpoint I don't understand how a theoretically professional (objective) psychologist wouldn't, by using the terms and definitions of their own field, diagnose every religious person as delusional.