Page 1 of 5 12 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 72

Thread: Delusions

  1. #1

    Default Delusions

    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Exevos View Post
    nacitar has never used any (to my knowledge) exploit maneuvers, glitches, and/or bugs... He has always been adamant in his ways, ... having been totally legit since launch, a feat many of us have failed.

  2. #2
    4000+
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wales
    Posts
    4,159

    Default

    History and Culture tbh.

    If we went back a few thousand years and everyone claimed to see this invisible guerilla and suddenly we worshipped it, that guerilla would be no different that today's religion and would be an accepted part of modern society.

  3. #3

    Default

    There are plenty of psychologists that take issue with religion, Freud definitely did and tons follow his school of thought. Are there also tons of psychologists that are hypocrites? Of course, humans for the most part are.

    "Religion is an illusion and it derives its strength from the fact that it falls in with our instinctual desires." --Sigmund Freud, New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis,1933.

    "Religion is comparable to a childhood neurosis." --Sigmund Freud, The Future of an Illusion, 1927
    "Religion is an attempt to get control over the sensory world, in which we are placed, by means of the wish-world, which we have developed inside us as a result of biological and psychological necessities. [...] If one attempts to assign to religion its place in man's evolution, it seems not so much to be a lasting acquisition, as a parallel to the neurosis which the civilized individual must pass through on his way from childhood to maturity." –Sigmund Freud, Moses and Monotheism, 1939


    From Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego (1921)

    "A religion, even if it calls itself a religion of love, must be hard and unloving to those who do not belong to it."

    From The Future of an Illusion (1927):

    "Our knowledge of the historical worth of certain religious doctrines increases our respect for them, but does not invalidate our proposal that they should cease to be put forward as the reasons for the precepts of civilization. On the contrary! Those historical residues have helped us to view religious teachings, as it were, as neurotic relics, and we may now argue that the time has probably come, as it does in an analytic treatment, for replacing the effects of repression by the results of the rational operation of the intellect."

    From Civilization and Its Discontents (1930):

    "The whole thing is so patently infantile, so foreign to reality, that to anyone with a friendly attitude to humanity it is painful to think that the great majority of mortals will never be able to rise above this view of life. It is still more humiliating to discover how a large number of people living today, who cannot but see that this religion is not tenable, nevertheless try to defend it piece by piece in a series of pitiful rearguard actions."

    "The different religions have never overlooked the part played by the sense of guilt in civilization. What is more, they come forward with a claim...to save mankind from this sense of guilt, which they call sin."
    Last edited by doomahx; 05-17-2012 at 16:27.

  4. #4
    10,000+ Long term follower
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,967

    Default

    Religion came before psychology. They couldn't lock everyone up so they picked the ones seeing invisible gorillas.

    There is a difference, however, and it is based in the distinction between a 'common' or shared belief that is taught and an isolated or unique belief that is spawned from one person's mind.

    (obviously, I don't know the psycho babble lingo but I'm pretty sure the answer revolves around that )
    Quote Originally Posted by MrBungle View Post
    If 3/4 of all the money spent on defense was diverted into education funds, public school would be dirt cheap
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack_Sparrow View Post
    99% of human resource offices are paid for by grants (non-tax dollars).

  5. #5
    Normal User
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    143

    Default

    am reading the wikipedia now , it is absurd to see how well religion fits the profile.

    thank you for this.

  6. #6
    Normal User
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    132

    Default

    our brain

    who gave it to us?

    it's obvious our species were altered at one point, for many reasons, mainly being the black void between our brain and our closest cousin. (insert any conspiracy theory here)

    whether you follow the lord jesus christ, or one the many gods.

    it all comes down to people living in the sky, ALIENS, it's inevitable and it's not a delusion. it's science.
    Last edited by Lil_Tunechi; 05-18-2012 at 00:43.

  7. #7
    4000+
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wales
    Posts
    4,159

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,582

    Default

    Psychiatry is normative and based partly on cultural and social circumstances. The DSM is purely constructed by a consensus of government and psychiatric organizations, and has been historically used to normatize "wrong" and "right" in let's say homosexuality or in the USSR, anti-Sovietism(a mental disorder there).

    But, that's not the goal of the DSM and psychiatry. Its to treat patients, whomever and regardless, if such and such disorder disrupts or affects one's life to the point where they or there loved ones seek help.

    Likewise, how rational and how delusional one tends to be is very likely just like everything else, on a spectrum. Where one may be a committed atheist, and yet firmly believe that there is some secret government or that cold-water is fattening is classified on this delusion scale.

    It just so happens that religion conveniently disguises itself as what's beyond tangible reality and what cannot in any way be disproven but justifies itself with dishonest and ridiculous evidence, whereas one can easily disprove a physical, seeable 30ft gorilla.

    If one where to say that they are directly hearing God, or that God manifests himself in so and so, they will be classified as needing help.
    Last edited by StrawberryClock; 05-18-2012 at 01:40.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,582

    Default

    Btw, you should clear up psychiatry and psychology.

    Psychology is a testable, verifiable science, psychiatry is a field of medicine.

  10. #10
    8000+
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Florida, U.S.
    Posts
    8,358

    Default

    Most all academia is politically charged. If not for passion of the yellow dog, but for the shit it farts out into their wallets.


  11. #11

    Default

    The DSM (book listing all mental disorders) is very contrived and highly NOT scientific. Many psychiatrists have problems with this.

    Point being, just because the DSM labels someone as "delusional," they very well may not be. So, you have to start there, rather than the "Are religious people delusional?" angle. Again, this is because the definition of "delusional" is arbitrary and unscientific.
    Philnaer Grimtrove
    Senior Detective
    Glory Seeker
    Servant of the Great Beard

  12. #12

    Default

    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

    So, in other words, I think like Freud on this particular point... and this paper at least agrees that religious beliefs meet the parameters of a delusion, or one being delusional; but that identifying this is omitted due to the cultural influences and the impact upon your life doing so would have... interesting.
    Last edited by Abaratican; 05-18-2012 at 05:25.
    Quote Originally Posted by Exevos View Post
    nacitar has never used any (to my knowledge) exploit maneuvers, glitches, and/or bugs... He has always been adamant in his ways, ... having been totally legit since launch, a feat many of us have failed.

  13. #13
    Normal User
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    904

    Default

    Newsflash: the world is chock-full of hypocrites.
    -Kael Trighton-

  14. #14
    1000+
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    US
    Posts
    1,749

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Abaratican View Post
    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.
    You missed the point of faith. Religion is organized faith and the bane of humanity. Faith is a necessary coping mechanism all humans (and I would argue all stable rational beings) have and use, including yourself.

    The difference here is that in the first case you presumably CAN see the gorilla. In the second case you clearly have no evidence of the magical man (you CANNOT see it) but chose to believe it exists (and subsequently interpret the world through that existence) in order to help your self carry on with life. Clearly the first is an issue with your brain processing, second business as usual.
    Last edited by Hydrogenium; 05-18-2012 at 14:34.

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hydrogenium View Post
    You missed the point of faith. Religion is organized faith and the bane of humanity. Faith is a necessary coping mechanism all humans (and I would argue all stable rational beings) have and use, including yourself.
    I don't really see "faith" as adding anything special to the explanation; it still seems like a delusion.

    Regardless, more interesting stuff... it appears Richard Dawkins wrote a book on this very topic.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion

    He is sympathetic to Robert Pirsig's statement in Lila that "when one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion."
    This sounds like an interesting book.
    Last edited by Abaratican; 05-18-2012 at 14:44.
    Quote Originally Posted by Exevos View Post
    nacitar has never used any (to my knowledge) exploit maneuvers, glitches, and/or bugs... He has always been adamant in his ways, ... having been totally legit since launch, a feat many of us have failed.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •