A word about accusations of mental illness

[Orrex]

As an atheist who has many times been accused of arrogant stubbornness, stubborn blindness, blind stupidity, and stupid egocentrism (to name a few), all because I don't embrace theism, I can see how it might be upsetting to be accused, obliquely or otherwise, of embracing a mental imbalance. I am aware that some are offended by having their cherished beliefs described in those terms or likened to symptoms thereof.

Years ago I knew a woman who had, by the time of our meeting, dated a man for close to seven years. We'll call her Lisa and him Donald. They became seriously involved while she was in middle school, even though he was thirteen years her senior. Her parents hated her involvement with him, but she refused to stop seeing him. Her friends thought the whole thing was strange, but they were likewise unable to intervene. Once in the course of their involvement, Donald raped Lisa, but somehow they reconciled and their love affair continued. During the rape, the song The Search is Over was playing, and she was unable to listen to it without pain from that point on.

Then, when she was nineteen, Lisa discovered--catastrophically--that Donald didn't exist. She suffered from full-blown schizophrenia along the lines of A Beautiful Mind, and her delusion had fabricated the entirety of her relationship with Donald, even going so far as to sign him in and out for visits to her dorm.

After learning that Donald was a fiction, she was still desperate to continue the relationship, and her illness persisted at least until she and I lost touch, when she was 21. It was truly a sad story, and the last time I saw her she looked positively ghastly, having been thoroughly traumatized by her illness and the realization of it.

But the whole time, both before and after her discovery, Lisa could recount her conversations with Donald and what they'd done together and how he affected her life. To those who knew her, Donald was a "real" as any other friend-of-a-friend whom we hadn't met. Aside from the age difference, there was nothing extraordinary in her experience or her account of it.


So I put forth the question explicitly and in all sincerity: how does the belief in a deity, whose existence can't be objectively verified, differ from a pathological delusion in which one ascribes reality to a mundane person whose existence likewise can't be verified? If anything, the former seems a more pronounced condition, because the extremity of the subject is so profound.

Every test of introspection that Lisa was able to perform confirmed to her that Donald was real, to the point that she eventually stopped questioning it. What tests does the theist perform that Lisa did not?

If, prior to Lisa's discovery, someone had told her that Donald didn't exist, she would have thought that the person was crazy, or at the very least she'd have been put off by the apparently ridiculous assertion. How does a theist's angry or dismissive response to questions of God's existence differ?


Again, I ask these in all sincerity. If anyone is offended by the mere asking of the questions, then I apologize, but that leaves us at square one.

Thanks in advance for your input.

edited to remove an unintended barb

[Redstone]

1. Good point. Very good. But no answers, not from me.

I'm not that deep a thinker.

Redstone

[klook]

2. One big difference

Only Lisa had contact with her imaginary friend. Millions of religious people have contact (or imagine they do) with their favorite deity(ies).

I'm an atheist, but I don't consider theism a mental illness.

[Orrex]

4. Thanks for a valid objection, but consider

What if Lisa had mentioned Donald to twenty friends, each of whom likewise had a lover whom none of the others had met. If it was then learned that all twenty-one lovers-in-absentia were the products of delusion, would that somehow make them more real? What if Donald and, say, Eric were very similar? Would that bolster their reality?

I'm afraid that for matters concerning an infinite, ultimate entity, personal belief is insufficient to establish the reality of that entity, no matter how many endorse the belief or how deeply it's felt. Can God's existence be demonstrated to one who doesn't believe in him?

edited to add a clarification!

I don't mean to suggest that religious is the product of a defect in the brain the way schizophrenia is, but functional (rather than organic) mental illness can also generate behaviors consistent with delusion.

[klook]

11. Lisa's friends would have to all believe in Donald,

not just their own individual imaginary friend, for the analogy to work.

I appreciate your idea, but I think it needs tweaking.

What if they all believed in an imaginary friend called "Donald," but for each of them "Donald" was different? That's a closer analogy to religious belief, if you ask me.

[Orrex]

15. God, Yahweh, Allah, Jehovah, Krishna, Ahura Mazda, Donald, etc.

A deity by any other name would smell as metaphysical, would it not?

I'm not sure that it's central that Lisa and company need to believe that anyone else's delusion-wrought lover really exists. I think it's sufficient that each believes herself to be dating someone the precise apparent nature of whom no one else can ascertain. That, I think, is part of the essence of religious faith; it's different for everyone.

Lisa and her twenty hypothetical friends are all participating in relationships with persons in whom they strongly believe but whose existence can't be verified. That's all the similarity they need in order for their situation to be analogous to widespread religious belief.

It's not a one-to-one correspondence, I admit, but I think the point is served.

[Goblinmonger]

5. But to continue the OP's analogy,

they only have "contact" with their deity because Lisa is the pastor telling everyone about Donald. Therefore everyone believes they know all about Donald.

[klook]

10. But religious people feel they've had personal contact

with Jesus, Allah, Buddah, the Flying Spaggheti Monster, or whoever it is. Not second-hand. That was my point.

[Dr.Phool]

3. I've asked that question many times myself.

And I get accused of belonging to a religion that for all intents and purposes doesn't exist.

I'm not proposing any answers, because I'm not in the mood to start a white phosphorous war.

[havocmom]

6. OK, can't see much difference in the absolute belief of the unseen,

deity or a psychotic delusion, except the psychotic delusion probably has less chance of ever being questioned by the believer. Many persons of faith in deity will have doubts occassionally.

My problem is a theism that goes beyond mono or poly. Pantheism. Gotta love it. All is sacred god-head to me. Am I sicker than most? More delusional than many? Less discriminating than some?

Just today, stretched out in the hammock, watching clouds in the vivid blue sky, listening to birds and children I wondered, "Do I really exist?"

Can't prove God, any God. Can't prove havocmom either. But I do see all as sacred. But what I take as sacred can also be experienced.

Or, so I think. Perhaps others cannot experience it at all.

What is odd is I am fairly sure I cannot prove that I exist. So perhaps all that is solid and real in my experience is nothing at all.

I need my hammock.

[BeatleBoot]

7. Lisa Needs Risperdal, the Church Goer Doesn't

First, Lisa is, in your example, clinically ill and psychotic.

Believing in a higher form is not psychotic.

"Belief" is different from "knowing".

Religion is based on "faith" or "belief".

Psychosis is a medical illness of the brain that makes one think that what is not real is real.

Psychosis is not environmental - it is a medical condition.

Belief in a god is not necessarily psychotic.

[klook]

12. That's a hilarious pic!

First time I've seen that one. Har.

[Orrex]

14. First of all, I love your sig-graphic

Secondly, I'm afraid that I forgot to anticipate your objection in the OP. Lisa was offered as an example of an extreme but very real-seeming delusion, to the point that she never even thought to question it. But in a later response I clarified that delusion needn't be psychotic, and mental illness needn't be the result of a structural or neurochemical defect in the brain.

Believing in a higher form is not psychotic.

I'm a little uncomfortable with the phrase "a higher form," since it's a trifle nebulous in this context. Nonetheless I'd agree that believing in a deity isn't necessarily psychotic, but the issuing of definitive statements based upon that belief (such as firm declarations about the source of morality, or the origin of the universe, or the meaning of existence) diverges from mere belief into something approaching delusion. Unless we are to infer a blanket disclaimer along the lines of "based upon my belief, which I can't verify in any objective manner, I hereby conclude the following about {insert subject here}."

You draw an excellent distinction between believing and knowing, a distinction that can't be made often enough IMO. I would counter that I have known numerous devout Christians who declare that they know that God exists and that they have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Even if they weren't psychotic, were these people delusional?

[grannylib]

8. Very interesting question! As a Christian, I am certainly not offended by

it (my faith being neither so weak nor so shallow as to be threatened by the thought of someone else holding a belief that differs from mine).
Hmmm....
Not sure if there is any answer to this; I guess I would start with my belief that faith in a deity is just that...FAITH, not science, not able to be empirically tested, not guaranteed, not demonstrable or proveable...it's a belief, no more and no less.
I choose to believe that some of what I see and experience is evidence of God, but again, that's a choice, and it's faith. I guess that would be one possible answer to the question...if Donald was nothing more than a figment of Lisa's imagination and there were no tangible evidence of his existence (other than that which she herself had created, like his signature in and out of her dorm) that would be different in my mind from the evidence I see around me (which I certainly cannot claim to have created!) that speaks to me of the existence of God...

And again, just my personal belief; not trying to proselytize here or anything.
Very interesting question to ponder!
:hi:

[badgerpup]

9. I'm not good at expressing this...

...but there's an awful lot of people coming into the field with an a priori 'belief' instilled so far back that it's difficult to think about logically. The answers that come up aren't logical but emotional, mystical, fear or threat-filled, or just "Because!"

It's very scary to look at something when you've been warned that questioning it will make horrible things happen to you...OK, maybe not now, but just you wait till you're dead and THEN you'll be sorry...

No, I'm not being sarcastic here...I'm trying to put something out into the light where it can be actually LOOKED at.
Isn't this the message?

[cosmik debris]

22. I like the "a priori" argument

If your parents teach you that there is a wonderful being who will welcome you into heaven when you die, are you mentally ill for believing your parents? At what point do you have to reject your parent's teaching to avoid mental illness?

Many of us atheists see atheism as the default position, but that is not true for those who are born into religion.

[Warpy]

13. I've had good success dealing with the truly ill

simply by telling the truth. When a schizophrenic patient has cautioned me to watch out for one of his/her hallucinations, I've just asked them to tell me where they are so I can avoid them because "You know I can't see them."

I do take the same approach when confronting another person's sexual orientation, religion, choice of a love affair partner, or fight with the same. I don't figure understanding what's going on is my job. My job is just to acknowledge that it exists for them even as it doesn't for me and to move on.

Most of the time, it's enough. However, if someone is dedicated to being a pain in the ass about any of the above, s/he will have to do it without my company.

[pnwmom]

16. William James (brother of Henry) addressed this question long ago in

"The Varieties of Religious Experience."

I haven't read the book in 30 years, but if I remember correctly his idea was that you have to look at the effects of the experience on the rest of a person's life.

I really don't recall the details of his argument but if you're interested, you could read for the book.

[Orrex]

21. Thanks for the tip--I'll look into it

Never heard of that work before now. It sounds interesting.

[SPKrazy]

28. Yes, And Mentally Ill People Have Negative Effects

from their delusions, hence the definition of mentally ill

if someone heard voices that told him or her the lottery numbers, which stocks to pick, etc. and they were correct, I doubt anyone would be trying to medicate away their "delusions" (despite the fact that they may in fact be negatively affected by such delusions)

but have someone think they are hearing the voice of someone telling them disturbing things, and that person's life is affected in a negative way, and they are diagnosed mentally ill

I think that comparing mentally ill people to people who believe in God is insulting to believers as it demeans their beliefs, and to mentally ill as it minimizes their struggles

[CoffeeCat]

17. I'm not trying to be flip...

...but I think it's interesting that someone would invent a lover--and that the invented lover
would go on to rape them.

I know this person has a mental disorder. However, if you are totally making up a lover--I'm wondering why part of her delusion included rape.

I'm wondering if this person had some other things going on. Perhaps she was suffering the repercussions of sexual abuse?

That just struck me as odd.

[Orrex]

20. Struck you as odd? Let me tell you!

I was actually with her one time when Donald showed up for a visit. She explained to me that he felt challenged by the presence of another male, and he wanted me to leave. In my ignorant and ham-fisted desire to help her, I simply refused to leave, thinking that my continued presence might help her struggle against the delusion. It didn't help in any measurable way, but at least it didn't seem to make it worse.

The whole experience was astonishingly creepy. Even by that time (fifteen years ago) I no longer believed in ghosts, but I can't deny that I felt that same kind of spectral vibe in the room. But her behavior was sufficiently altered from her usual personality to explain the creepiness, kind of like when you encounter a sibling or spouse talking in his/her sleep.

I don't know why her delusion included the rape, though--like you--I suspected an underlying trauma that had fed the delusion. If she had been raped or abused in real life, she never revealed this to me.

I wonder from time to time how she's doing, but it would be very difficult to track her down. Her real name was approximately as comman as Jane Smith, so most searches turn up a zillion hits.

I still wish her well, though.

[bloom]

18. It seems to me

that the main difference is solitary delusion - where one is creating one's own reality (without realizing it).

And a group delusion. If you are part of a group that believes in a delusion together (which most people do about something) - then you are generally considered to be sane.

(I've noticed that mental health professionals frown on the idea of people creating their own religion.)


One comparison is to "Manufacturing Consent" - it seems that Chomsky showed how people are deluded as a group about various things. It's not even necessarily like someone is sitting around pulling the strings about the delusions - sometimes they are - but mostly that there can be organic, evolving myths.

The military is full of myths about goodness and all kinds of things that people believe. Like - if you are part of the military - all of a sudden it becomes noble to kill people.

There are myths about what is reality as far as events. Like with the Israel/Lebanon situation - if you are part of one group - you believe one thing (it can seem like mass hypnosis) - if you are part of another group - you believe something entirely different. People think that they know - that their sources are reliable and such. But there are few who know - and even those at the top who think that they know - don't necessarily know.

So that is what I think religion and God beliefs are like. Enough people believe a thing - a person is part of the group - and they believe what the rest of the group believes (or they try). Often people will think that there is (or was) an authority somewhere who has it all figured out- and they trust that authority.

It's pretty different from people with psychosis - who are more like in their own world.

Though it might seem like there are similarities - like how there are a lot of things that people think that they know - that they really don't.

[Finder]

23. Good post. The part about group delusion is spot on. Fatima miracle...

for example.

[Random_Australian]

19. Choice. The believer makes a choice based on what they want.

One who is schizophrenic does not get that choice.

[SPKrazy]

24. It's Simple

Mental illness causes disruption in a person's life before it is considered to be a problem.

Your example of Lisa, who was mentally ill, has nothing in common whatsoever with functional people who believe in a deity, a deity who gives them strength and peace to face life on life's terms.

Your attempt to hide your disdain towards theism and your contrasting it with mental illness (AGAIN) are noted

[Maat]

25. I agree with you, Southpawkicker.

I have a Master's Degree in Psychology, and worked (prior to early retirement) in the mental health and social services fields for over ten years. I'm not saying I have the answers, but I have explored the cognitive and behavioral models and concepts.

The key is whether or not the behavior in question interferes with one's basic functionality and day-to-day routine.

My belief in Spirit (God/Goddess) does involve "faith," and it helps me immensely in visualizing success, creating and articulating positive self-statements (the key to mental health, and adaptive self-programming, in my humble opinion), and letting go of negative emotional noise.

Southpawkicker, you saved the thread for me; this thread is an example of why I've really decreased my time in R/T. We are not using the forum to unite progressives (both non-believer and believer) to address the Religious Hardright, we are not politely and considerately trading viewpoints, perspectives, and experiences, and some insist on applying terms such as 'mental illness,' 'myth,' and 'immoral' to other posters, to no one's benefit.

That's just my opinion.

[SPKrazy]

26. Thanks Maat

I agree with you

[Maat]

33. Here is a terrific example of how a thread in R/T should go.

Everyone, at least for the vast majority of the thread (there might have been an exception or two after I left), was very considerate, polite, and diligent, in terms of creating and maintaining a pleasant, beneficial exchange of viewpoints, perspectives, and experiences. This is what every thread should be like in R/T.

Link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x43917 .

[SPKrazy]

35. Pleasant, But With A Lively Discussion, No Name Calling

or comparisons of religion with mental illness, etc.

[Maat]

36. Exactly!

And when one of us accidentally offended another poster, it was pointed out, and then more clarification of viewpoint/perspective was added. Ah, enlightenment!

[okasha]

27. Gee whiz,

could the difference be that Lisa's brain chemistry is out of whack, and the brain chemistry of most theists (and most atheists) isn't?

Nah, that's much too easy and scientific.

[SPKrazy]

29. Oh Now, I Think You Are Taking Away The OP's

delusions that theists are mentally ill

[Evoman]

31. Excellent point,

Brain scans, or chemical analysis of the brain and blood, of religious people would not show abnormalities, as is often the case with people who really are mentally ill.

[SPKrazy]

34. Unless They Are Mentally Ill As Well

and there are mentally ill people that are religious, but certainly they are a subset of religious people, just as they are a part of all society.

To say religion is a mental illness, or to imply it, is demeaning to the mentally ill as they SUFFER from diseases that may incapacitate them.

[Evoman]

30. Religion is not a mental illness...

I am personally of the opinion that Religion is way that people gather knowledge, albeit an antiquated, and ridiculously non-sensical one. Especially since there are better way of answering questions. I don't get tje feeling that a lot of people actually feel like god is literally talking to them. If they heard a voice talking to them, then you could argue schizophrenia, but otherwise, no.

I don't know why people try to equate the two...they are not the same. Some people are racist, and that is not a mental illness. Some people like only a certain type of food that they ate at home growing up, but refuse to try something different (like Indian food)...that is not a mental illness (however, if no matter what restaurant you go to, you always get the chicken fingers...then yes, your are mentally ill lol).

I think religion is an incredibly backward way of looking at the world, expecially with new ways of learning that don't rely on 2000 year old books written by some ignorant goat herders who thought people were made of clay. But religion is not a mental illness.

[SPKrazy]

32. Well, Glad You Could Sort Of Denounce The OP

but then saying it is incredibly backward, isn't much better (or saying that racists aren't mentally ill either)

but I appreciate your effort to denounce the idea that religion is delusion

[Evoman]

39. Lol, sorry

But thats my opinion. Rascists aren't mentally ill, nor are religious people, nor are agnostics, nor are atheists (um..unless they are depressed or schizo, but not as a group). I still do not look favourably at religion. However, I make the distinction between religion and religous people. My girlfriend is a christian, after all....and a scientist. Whenever things conflict, she is scientist first, because science is a superiour way of gaining knowledge. However, she doesn't let go of the christianity part of her, I think, because its how she was raised and still believes a lot of it. And I don't say anything to her about it...what she wants to believe is up to her, and I can respect THAT. When she asks me for my opinion (and she has) then I tell her exactly what I am telling you.

Evoman

EDIT: And I didn't sort of denounce the OP, I completely denouce what he is saying. That does not mean I like religion though.

[salvorhardin]

37. pnwmom, Maat and okasha have the right answer I think

One belief is part of a disease process while the other isn't (normally). It would be a rare individual who based all of their beliefs on concrete, verifiable evidence. Some things we choose to believe just because we think they're better beliefs than their opposites.

For instance, I believe that nonviolent solutions are always preferable over violent solutions, even if seeking nonviolent solutions often leads to greater complications than just lobbing a bomb or assassinating someone. I have no direct evidence for this belief. And I can think of many situations where I would be unable to defend it. Yet I persist in this belief simply because I know personally that I would prefer a world without undue violence.

Is this belief comparable to belief in a deity? No. Not really. But I don't think it is necessarily the content of the belief that matters so much as how one believes it. Lisa's entire worldview was so bound up in the belief of her non-existent S.O. that even when she knew she was ill she persisted in nurturing that belief despite the negative effects upon her life. She was willing to throw away her life in order to further the existence of the belief. In other words the belief, this program running in her brain, was more important to her than her own self.

And that's the point where I think beliefs can become mental illnesses. When the belief becomes more important than anything else. It's a sort of addiction and I think this model applies equally well to extreme religiosity or any worldview. The question is, which comes first? The belief or the mental illness? I think in Lisa's case the mental illness probably came first but can extreme beliefs lead to mental illness? I suspect they can, under the right conditions. After all, soldiers and other people with prolonged exposure to emotionally distressing situations can develop PTSD so I don't think it's unreasonable to think certain patterns of beliefs can lead to mental illness in some cases. But I don't know and I don't think we've really had either the knowledge of the brain or the tools until very recently to even begin answering questions like these so it's likely to be a long time before I or anyone else does know. So for now you could say that it's a tentative belief.

Again, I want to be clear. Normally religious beliefs are in no way equivalent to mental illness although sometimes extreme religiosity is a symptom of mental illness.

[rug]

38. Your anecdote sounds nothing like any mentally ill person I've known.

[Broken_Hero]

40. Locking

Inflammatory/Flamebait

If you have any questions contact

---->http://www.democraticunderground.com/contact.html