Religion
In reply to the discussion: Religious Belief = Mental Illness: A More Venomous Response [View all]Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)This article from the Journal of Psychiatric Practice, and indexed by the national health, often notes doctors finding delusions in large segments of religion(s). Even at times, all religion. (Freud, et alia).
1) First of all, Sigmund Freud suggested that all religion could be bad, and specifically delusional: "Historically, psychiatrists such as Freud have suggested that all religious beliefs are delusional."
2) Second, whole "subcultures" in religion can be delusional: "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."
Note here that furthermore, the abstract does not make it clear; but perhaps whole denominations might qualify as religious "subgroups" that are deluded. Or even perhaps whole religions, relative to the many different religions in the world. The term is "subgroups"; with no further limiting specification.
So the abstract does not rule out the possibility that whole religions could be regarded as delusional.
3) And of course, it acknowledges that at least some elements of religion can be delusional. But the abstract does not rule out larger errors; like those suggested above.
4) The article explicitly and specifically furthermore, allows that religious beliefs can be called "delusional," from a rational and scientific perspective: "Religious beliefs exist outside of the scientific domain; therefore they can be easily labeled delusional from a rational perspective." ( Some might think the abstract hints this is too easy; yet the authors do not specify that.)
So this article in sum, acknowledges historical and present psychological criticisms of huge chunks of religion. Ranging from even 1) all of it; to 2) subgroups, which might include whole religion. To 3) any smaller parts as well. Specifically 4) it notes that science and reason could well apply the word "delusion" to religious phenomena.
5) To be sure, this article, like many on religion, seems somewhat equivocal. To some it will seem perhaps open to suggesting that there are normative, healthy religious practices; as it alludes to examining "impact on functioning." Yet? Earlier the article noted that it is hard to "distinguish between 'normal' religious beliefs and 'pathological' religious delusions." So that even "normative" religion seems open to criticism.
Some readers might think that this article finally affirms the notion that we should consider that religion might be functional - and therefore good - in social context; in encouraging group membership and solidarity say. Yet note that the article abstract does not unequivocally say that. In fact, it's final remark is equivocal on that point: "a religious belief's dimensional characteristics, its cultural influences, and its impact on functioning may be more important considerations in clinical practice." Note that strictly speaking, this does not suggest that social "functioning" will trump all other considerations; since it does not tell us that social "functioning" is always good.
In fact, social "function" can be bad. So for example, we might use this example: Pope Benedict XVI, in allowing himself to be drafted into the Nazi army in WW II, probably did so to stay alive and free; and his act was functional in that sense. But? It also "functioned" to help the Nazi army.
We should not assume that social "FUNCTION" is always positive.
And so finally? Though this article abstract is somewhat equivocal, and open to many readings, finally we must insist that it does not firmly or unequivocally support the notion that religion is normative, and has a good social function. While indeed, it very seriously entertains the opposite thesis.
Noting moreover that 6) this negative thesis on Religion has solid standing in major elements of the Psychology community. Beginning with Freud himself; but then seconded by many contemporary hesitations expressed here, regarding religion.