Religious privilege: having your delusions written out of the DSM.

[Warren Stupidity]

So have a look at Peter’s book (he gave a terrific talk on it in June at TAM). What I wanted to post, beyond this recommendation, was something in the book that I didn’t know. The DSM of psychiatry, explained in the excerpt below, defines delusions in such a way that religion is really one of them. But then it exempts religion from the psychiatric diagnosis of “delusion” because it is widely held. Here’s an excerpt from Peter’s book, which I post with his permission (the bolding is Peter’s, but I would have bolded it, too!):


The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA), is the single most important text used by clinicians. It is the diagnostic rulebook. Currently, the DSM grants religious delusions an exemption from classification as a mental illness. The following is the DSM-IV’s definition of delusion:

“A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person’s culture or subculture (e.g. it is not an article of religious faith). When a false belief involves a value judgment, it is regarded as a delusion only when the judgment is so extreme as to defy credibility. Delusional conviction occurs on a continuum and can sometimes be inferred from an individual’s behavior. It is often difficult to distinguish between a delusion and an overvalued idea (in which case the individual has an unreasonable belief or idea but does not hold it as firmly as is the case with a delusion)” (2000, p. 765).

Again, religion gets a pass in society. Why should someone’s belief be a delusion only if it’s held by a minority of people? In the important respect of being “an incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained,” and one that “defies credibility,” religion is a delusion. But note how religious faith is specifically exempted. Further, many individuals’ religious behaviors do indicate a delusional conviction (falling on one’s knees and talking to an imaginary friend, eating wafers, bowing toward Mecca five times a day, and so on).

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/08/29/the-bible-of-psychiatric-diagnosis-exempts-religion-from-delusions-even-though-it-is-one/

Note the language in DSM-V is altered a bit, but retains the same exemption.

A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly held despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not ordinarily accepted by other members of the persons's culture or subculture (i.e., it is not an article of religious faith). When a false belief involves a value judgment, it is regarded as a delusion only when the judgment is so extreme as to defy credibility. Delusional conviction can sometimes be inferred from an overvalued idea (in which case the individual has an unreasonable belief or idea but does not hold it as firmly as is the case with a delusion). (DSM-5, p.819)

[trotsky]

1. And one of the more interesting things to come out of that would be the realization...

that at one time, every major religion would have been classified a delusion, since each started with just a small group of believers.

[cleanhippie]

3. "The only difference between a cult and a religion is the size of the congregation"

Or so the saying goes.

This also touches on whether a religion is "fake" or not. The contorted rationalizations that some give to show why Mormonism is a fake religion or a cult, yet Catholicism is a "Real Religion" is laughable. Perhaps they are simply deluded?

[trotsky]

4. Well, the arbiters of civility and respect have decided that it's OK to laugh at the Book of Mormon.

So apparently the cutoff for when a religion must be treated with respect is more than 15,000,000.

[Starboard Tack]

7. The Bible has lots of funny parts too. Check it out sometime.

Lots of books are funny. Do you think it is sinful to laugh at books?

[AtheistCrusader]

39. Depends on which part you identify as being 'funny'

[Starboard Tack]

40. Varies with the mood, the day of the week, time of the month

Noah's Ark always cracks me up, just thinking about it. I mean, I live on a boat. Need I say more.
Then there's Jonah and the whale.
And Job? Well, if you can plow thru the Book of Job without seeing the humorous side, then maybe a plague or two might help.
Walking on the water always tickled me. What was that all about, if not knowing where the rocks were.
The entire Book of Genesis, of course.

Hey, maybe I have a twisted sense of humor. I stopped at Moroni in the BoM. The introduction was pretty darn hilarious though. About on a par with Genesis. Finding these books funny does not mean they are worthless and may not have important messages for some.

[Dorian Gray]

21. The play was hysterical

didn't you laugh?

Oh, you mean the holy book. I've never laughed at that.

[trotsky]

24. Some have indeed laughed at the book itself.

Even bragged about laughing at it (right here on DU!), on their entire drive through Utah.

[rug]

2. Read a book.

http://www.appi.org/searchcenter/pages/SearchDetail.aspx?ItemId=2658

You might even find something on perseverance in there.

[Starboard Tack]

6. Read a book? If only!

Then I might start to believe in miracles. I think he'd rather keep digging holes.

[stone space]

5. The language would also seem to apply just as well to atheists.

A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly held despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture (i.e., it is not an article of religious faith). When a false belief involves a value judgment, it is regarded as a delusion only when the judgment is so extreme as to defy credibility. Delusional conviction can sometimes be inferred from an overvalued idea (in which case the individual has an unreasonable belief or idea but does not hold it as firmly as is the case with a delusion). (DSM-5, p.819)

The only mention of religious faith is in the parenthetical remark (which I bolded above), and it appears to me to be used in a rather broad sense that would apply to the beliefs of atheists as well.

In that sense, this is as much an example of atheist privilege as it is religious privilege.

In reality, I suspect that it is neither. It is likely simply an example of people in a field different from my own field of mathematics attempting to make distinctions relevant to their field.

[Warren Stupidity]

8. What "A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality" do atheists hold?

[stone space]

12. I've seen some pretty pseudo-scientific stuff...

...from atheists at times.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218146830#post15

I'm not sure whether such pseudo-scientific beliefs are shared by a large enough subculture to qualify, however.

Clearly, like religious subcultures, atheist subcultures are widely varying from one another, and that may effect diagnosis.

As a mathematician, such determinations are way over my pay grade.

The belief is not ordinarily accepted by other members of the persons's culture or subculture (i.e., it is not an article of religious faith).

[Warren Stupidity]

13. Oh you mean an atheist might believe some nonsense unrelated

to religious beliefs that would also qualify as delusional. Well yeah, of course, I certainly never said that only people who are religious can hold delusional beliefs.

There is at least one alleged atheist here who has stated that he believes in demons, although both his claim to be an atheist and his claim to believe in demons are suspect.

Your link however is not relevant.

[stone space]

18. The beliefs and arguements...

...at the other side of that link are not widely shared in what might be called my own atheist subculture in meatspace.

Oh you mean an atheist might believe some nonsense unrelated to religious beliefs that would also qualify as delusional.

However, I do not automatically assume that there do not exist atheist subcultures (particularly on the internet) where such pseudo-scientific beliefs and arguments may indeed be common enough to trigger the appropriate clause in the DSM.

My interactions online suggest that such atheist subcultures may in fact exist.

[Warren Stupidity]

19. "atheist subcultures"

fine please provide evidence of these alleged "atheist subcultures" that hold delusional beliefs, rather than some subculture that holds delusional beliefs some of whose members happen to be atheists.

[stone space]

20. I never claimed...

...anything about "delusional beliefs". If enough of a subculture exists, it doesn't get classified as such.

And as it is for me more of an internet phenomina than a meatspace phenomina, I wouldn't consider what is at the other side of that link to be anything other than an anecdote.

I'm merely pointing out that the exclusion you are objecting to is not solely talking about religious beliefs, and could be applied to atheist beliefs as well as other types of beliefs such as political beliefs as well.

It's a cultural thing. Religious beliefs are included because religion is a cultural phenomina as well as a personal phenomina.

[edhopper]

23. Please name an "atheist belief" that is delusional?

Not a belief that may be held by an atheist but has nothing to do with their nonbelief in a deity.
Do you think that people who claim to be abducted by UFOs aren't considered delusional or get the same pass religious beliefs do.

[stone space]

27. I don't see any such restriction in the DSM.

Not a belief that may be held by an atheist but has nothing to do with their nonbelief in a deity

What I see is talk about cultures and subcultures and how widespread a belief is within a subculture.

Simple belief or disbelief in a diety wouldn't even be considered here, since it wouldn't pass the "incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary" clause, as no serious person who I know of really claims to have actual proof one way or the other.

[mr blur]

9. Well, as an atheist for over 50 years, I'd have to say "Don't be rediculous!"

But thanks for playing.

[trotsky]

10. Does that make you a "lifelong atheist" or an "old school atheist?"

Gotta establish your creds, ya know - repeatedly!

[stone space]

11. I've actually taken to calling myself...

...an "atheist atheist", to distinguish myself from my "agnostic atheist" brethren.

Although "old school atheist" works fine for me, somehow "atheist atheist" seems more in line with modern internet terminology, so I use it when I want to sound more hip.

Gotta establish my hip cred, you know.

Repeatedly.

Otherwise, I'll be dismissed as an old fogey by the hip new internet crowd.

[Leontius]

14. Careful now somebody else's ox just might get gored here.

[Warren Stupidity]

16. If you have a point, try stating it.

[edhopper]

15. I wonder what Christians, who feel they have the spirit of Christ touch them

who feel his presence, and are even "born again" in his grace, all of which must be very real; feel about a Hindu who knows he is touched by Vishnu, their very real God? Were the Greeks who heard from their Gods delusional? What about the Native Americans who commune with the various spirits, whose power they feel, are they delusional or can all these Gods exist together? Wouldn't that contradict what the bible says?

[hrmjustin]

17. I believe they touch divine as well.

[edhopper]

22. But I thought the only way to heaven

was through Jesus Christ?
Since you think that most things about Jesus are very real, how can all these other Gods exist as well?
Or do you think they are touched by the God of Abraham, the God of Moses and Israel but just don't see it and think it was these other Gods? Do you think the myths of the Greek Gods or the Mahabharata could be true, many of the believers do and did? Are they wrong or did they really happen?

[hrmjustin]

25. I believed all humans are saved by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

I believe in the trinitarian God but others believe in other Gods.

I think there is a divine and we all have different ideas what it is.

[edhopper]

26. So it is all true

or none of it is true?

You accept the existence of these other Gods, as they are described by their faithful? Or are they people who just can't see it is the Lord of the Bible?

[hrmjustin]

28. I accept there it is a divine.I believe it is the Christian God.

Ialso believe other people of faith experience theis same divine but they call this divine by other names and have different ideas on it.

[cleanhippie]

29. That's the epitome of arrogance.

To think that all of the gods non-Christians believe in is really just the Christian god but they don't know that...

Wow. Just wow.

[edhopper]

30. What about the stories those believers have

you believe much of the New Testament actually happened as described, are their stories also true?
Did Vishnu, Shiva and the rest of the Hindu Gods interact they way the stories say. Were there Gods on My. Olympus?
Can all these stories with all these Gods be true at the same time. I am not talking about a vague idea of some divine, and neither are you, you believe in God as described in the Bible and his son Jesus, is this the same God that took the form of Odin to the Norsemen? Why were his teachings so different to them?

[hrmjustin]

31. I don't know.

But the believers of those faiths believe in it and I believe their faith in the divine is just as good as mine.

[edhopper]

32. Do you at least see

the problems with belief in these specific things, which are contradictory with other beliefs.
I get you would rather not dwell on it and live within your faith and what it means to you, but do you at least see the logical questions I am posing?

[hrmjustin]

33. Your questions are fine.

[edhopper]

34. Thank you for answering as you see fit.

[hrmjustin]

35. Your welcome.

[Brettongarcia]

36. A few months ago, we noted problems with taking mere cultural acceptance to validate religion

FIRST: It is not true for example, that just the fact that a fair number of people believe something, makes it true.

The Greeks believed in Zeus: that does not make their belief true.

Many religions believed in ritual torture and killing; that does not make it a good, true idea.

Many religions believed that waving a magic stick at sick people made them well; that does not make it true.

Going with cultural opinion therefore, does not definitely mark something as true. Or non-delusional.

SECOND: The DSM has indeed, been meddled with, and its rationality compromised, by interested religious parties, no doubt. Earlier manuals were somewhat different, by the way. While indeed, much of current Psychology continues to regard much of religion as explicitly "delusional." And as commonly correlated with mental illness. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_delusion

In DU over the last year, we examined dozens of professional psychological journals that asserted that Religion is a delusion.

[Act_of_Reparation]

37. I have to disagree with Jerry on this one

Does religious belief fit the definition of "delusion"? Generally, yes... so much that I think if you are going to use the descriptor "delusional" in its colloquial sense (some Very Serious People here have said the popular usage of a term trumps specialized definitions; I'd love to see them roll with that statement now) that you shouldn't catch shit for it.

That said, the DSM exists for a specific purpose: diagnosing mental illness.

Despite what Jerry Coyne thinks about this, the APA hasn't pulled a fast one on anyone. They've defined mental illness in a diagnostically meaningful way -- a condition which negatively affects socio-occupational function -- and religious belief, by itself, simply doesn't fit the bill.

Plenty of people believe incorrect things, but these beliefs do not necessarily arise from pathology. We are socialized into them. Many of them are normative within our close social groups. They don't inhibit day-to-day life and are therefore not the problem of mental health professionals.

That's the short answer, at any rate.

[MellowDem]

38. Yep