Religion
Related: About this forumFaith or delusion? At the crossroads of religion and psychosis.
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
The bad atheists are everywhere!
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Abstract
The prevailing view is that individuals with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) are able to think rationally about their obsessive concerns and are thus able to recognize them as senseless. However, clinical observations indicate that at least some obsessive-compulsives do not regard their symptoms as unreasonable or excessive, and their ideas have been characterized as overvalued or delusional. In the present paper the concepts of obsessions, overvalued ideas, and delusions are discussed and compared, and the available studies of insight among obsessive-compulsives are reviewed. It is concluded that obsessive-compulsive ideas can not satisfactorily be dichotomized according to patients' insight, and that the notion of a continuum of strength of obsessive-compulsive beliefs is more appropriate. The relationship between degree of obsessive-compulsive conviction and outcome of therapy remains unclear. Methodological issues that complicate our understanding of OCD are considered, and theories of delusions are examined in relation to their development in OCD.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8192634
Nobody is bad for being an atheist.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Abstract
The present study examined the relationships among type and severity of obsessive-compulsive symptoms, types of religious practice and upbringing, degree of religiosity, and guilt. Subjects were 33 OCDs and 24 patients with other anxiety disorders. Findings indicated that no type of religion was more prevalent among OCD patients than other groups. OCDs were not significantly more religious or more guilty than other anxious subjects. Nonetheless, severity of OCD pathology was positively correlated with both religiosity and guilt, whereas moodstate was not. Social anxiety was associated with guilt but not with religiosity. OCDs who were more religious more often reported religious obsessions, but not sexual or aggressive ones. Guilt was not related to any type of obsession. As expected, greater religious devotion was related to more guilt in OCDs, but not in other anxiety patients. The relationship between religion, guilt, and OCD symptoms is discussed and suggestions for further research are proposed
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/088761859190035R
You had me worried.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Would you care to share with us the origin of your religious obsession? Were you abused or maltreated in some way? Sharing often helps, especially in group situations.
Most of us atheists never think about God or religion. I hadn't thought about either in decades until I came here and encountered the obsessive antitheism that you and a few others indulge in daily. There has to be a bigger reason for that than getting nativity scenes off public property and marriage equality, because those things are not issues here. Everyone is on the same side.
Share with us where the hatred comes from, that pushes you more and more to condemn and vilify believers, including fellow DUers. Why would anyone use such hateful and abusive language as "delusional and psychotic" in thread after thread?
Do you think your behavior is laudable? Do you think you will enlighten these misguided masses and convert them from belief to non-belief? Are you on some messianic mission here to deconvert? Be honest. You are among friends. Nobody hates you, but few understand you. Help us all understand you a little better, so we can move forward.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)forum.
And exactly what behavior of mine is it that we are discussing?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I had no idea there were atheists who obsessed about the bible and religion.
That's what we're talking about Warren. The obsession with calling believers "delusional"
You currently have at least 8 ops in the last week trying to convince everyone that believers are mentally ill. What are you trying to achieve? What is your end game?
Do you think they should all be institutionalized? Or should everyone convert to your version of "sanity"?
rug
(82,333 posts)You're running out of steam, Warren.
I bet you won't even make it to the Shakers.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)Scholarly Psychology is not like the latest reality show; jumping the shark after 5 years or so.
It is indeed unfortunate that many here currently can afford access only to abstracts; due to a "pay wall" in front of many academic papers. However, note that 1) scholars design their abstracts to represent their articles as accurately as they can.
And 2) most academic libraries - and by the way, my public library too - now have online access to thousands of academic papers; full text. Thanks to their paying annual subscription fees to ALL EBSCO, especially.
Check your own local academic source. Or even your public library. For free online access to about a million academic sources, journals. Through especially, EBSCO.
In contrast by the way? Religious supporters of course are criticizing atheists for quoting a source from 2001 AD. While they themselves are quoting a book that is at least two thousand years old, or worse: c. 1,300 BC to 180 AD in origin.
Our sources are more advanced than most of yours, by nearly 3,000 years.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I smell something burning.
rug
(82,333 posts)When you're done, post the paper.
rug
(82,333 posts)Assuming, of course, that a genuine discussion was sought.
By the way, those sources do not belong to you (whoever you mean by "our"
.
okasha
(11,573 posts)I don't think BG is a ruling monarch or an editor, though.
rug
(82,333 posts)Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)Arguably, posting such an article entire might be considered "fair use"; that is, it can be very extensively used for academic purposes, even here on humble DU.
At the same time? I've quoted excerpts from papers previously.
I've linked to entire articles that were explicitly intended to be so linked.
And I have explained how anyone might get access to even restricted sources, even by subscription.
Though your local or US public library.
I hope that you will take ownership of these, yourself.
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)If something idiosyncratic becomes normalized, shouldn't the conclusion be that what starts out as originally "delusional" because it was produced by supposedly sub-par individual processes could come to be held non-delusionally as people whose processes are regular receive the belief via normal cultural transmission? Instead, the author seems to think that the belief by its mere content alone can contaminate previously regular processes, even though he/she says that on an individual basis, how the belief is held might be more useful for labeling purposes than the specific content of the belief.
I would be very interested to see all of this sorted out in the full paper.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)The emerging conclusion is this: the mere fact that many people hold a given belief, does not guarantee it is true, or non-delusional.
In fact, this or other related articles suggest that many widespread religious beliefs in miracles for example, would be considered false or delusional, according to science. And therefore, even religious ideas with mass acceptance should be considered delusional to psychology.
Obviously there were many so-called technologically unadvanced cultures, that seem to have had beliefs that seem false, or "delusional." Many cultures believed for example, that if you shake a stick at a diseased person, and say the right magic words or prayers, then the disease will lift.
Modern medicine however has shown that such beliefs were overwhelmingly, false. Even though they were held by entire cultures.
Based on this kind of finding, professional articles like the present one, or others, suggest that when the Diagnostic Statistical Manual alleged that widespread religious beliefs might be regarded as true, normative, or non-"delusion"al, the DSM was wrong. It had been subjected to popular religious pressure; religions obviously trying to "carve out" a special exemption for themselves.
While today there is a whole raft of professional articles, suggesting that the DSM should must now be changed. As it was changed many times before.