A common assertion against religion is that it is delusion, but in order to protect themselves from seeming too bigoted, a lot of people who make this assertion about religion also demand that a delusion doesn't have to imply a mental illness.
This statement seems contrary to psychological definition of mental illness and delusion. Does the state of being delusional imply being mentally ill?
Daniel Goldman writes "One of the biggest issues is that we can't really define delusion based on truth, because we have no real way to evaluate what is and is not true" and, although I have no objective way to evaluate the truth of this statement, I do agree with it.
:)
Whether a delusion is a symptom of illness has more to do with the social context and the effects of the belief than the actual content of the delusion.
.
Religious and spiritual or supernatural beliefs can never be tested objectively, however even in cultures that actively encourage altered states of consciousness and belief in spirits and/or magic, there are still words to describe what we would call “delusion” or "psychosis". .
For example in Yoruba the word "were" describes a "disease" that encompasses "hearing voices; trying to get others to hear or see something that isn't there; smelling, seeing, tasting, hearing, or feeling things that others say aren't there; laughing for no reason; talking too much or not at all; piling sticks for no reason; fear of JuJu (ie witchcraft) when no-one else believes there is any JuJu".
Similarly, amongst Inuit people the term "nuthkavihak" means "talking to oneself; answering oneself; talking to people who are not there; believing a child or partner was killed by magic when no-one else believes this; believing oneself to be an animal; not talking at all; running away for no reason; getting lost; hiding in strange places; drinking urine; becoming strong and violent for no reason; killing dogs or threatening people for no reason." .
See; "Readings in Abnormal Psychology"
edited by Jill M. Hooley, John M. Neale, Gerald C. Davison
Link to relevant pages;
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=jYhnhQ4X-e8C&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=nuthkavihak&source=bl&ots=nHaFfsem9K&sig=KcjhDG5Qp7_x6_pPuMmm8xv4nvs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=gNCeUZ-9CfC4iAflyIHYBQ&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=nuthkavihak&f=false
.
Note that in both these cultures, people are only described as delusional (or 'mad') if they exhibit several symptoms. Note also that most of these symptoms are only considered "madness" if nobody else believes in them- (your whole community may unite to kill a neighbor if enough of them believe s/he is a witch who is poisoning people- it’s only a symptom of illness if you are the only one holding the belief).
.
Whether any behavior or belief is a symptom of mental illness is culturally determined. Until December 1973 anyone who was same-sex attracted was defined by the DSM as being mentally ill, and it was part of the job of psychiatry to "cure" them. When the APA decided to remove homosexuality from the DSM, and accepted that homosexuality was not an illness, (but rather part of the normal range of human sexual expression), all those people suddenly became "well", even though their feelings, beliefs and behaviours had not changed at all. The process of depathologising homosexuality was not yet over- it wasn't until DSM-III-R in 1987 that the 'normal variance' view triumphed, but this is a very instructive example of how subjective and context dependent our definitions of mental illness are.
See; Article Out of DSM: Depathologizing Homosexuality
.
My answer to Daniel's original question, "Can you have delusion without mental illness?" is "Yes, of course you can". We all suffer a variety of delusions (about ourselves, about others, about the nature of the world). This is simply part of the human condition.
None of us have an objective view of the world or of ourselves, and we all carry delusions, some trivial and mundane, some extremely unusual or bizarre.
Ultimately, whether delusions are symptoms of mental ill-health is not dependent on the content or floridity of someone’s delusions. It is determined by whether the delusions are causing distress, dysfunction, suffering, or increased risk of injury or death to the person exhibiting the delusions, their family, and the community they live with.
Delusion is when you can't tell what you imagine to be true, from reality.
We acknowledge reality as being what we see and experience . . . or from what we are told by 'trusted' sources. But how can we trust our senses or our references?
Examples: Fake news, biased research, re-written religious books, abnormal sensory input (blindness, trickery, illusion, misinterpretation), politics and mental illness.
Both science and religion are studied by the individual from books and 'learned' people. What is reasonable for one person to believe from this material may not be sufficient for another. Belief is the critical factor here. In science, proof is demanded before belief is possible. That same proof may also turn out to be delusional after learning new facts from experience.
Someone suffering delusions through mental illness is living in their own realty - and when this conflicts with the world around them., they need help to readjust.
We are all deluded at some time. Thankfully, this does not affect our will to learn more in order to believe we know something.
Yes. It is possible to being in the state or process of delusion without becoming mentally ill. Uncertainty, not-knowing and uneasiness are natural feelings in the stream of our human moods, but progressive mentalization is needed to not getting stucked in the 'delusional pit' (feeling--reflection--action--circuit).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mentalization
Is the reality around us a delusion?
For example, I heard the following phrase from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ahtD7xa6rQ : "The passion of humanity for sports is a huge vice that humanity does not realize yet. This is the lack of intellectual development that over time, is most likely will be passed by humanity. It started from ancient times when the herd ran after the beast and killed the beast or fought with another herd, and the sports team resembles a herd ... ". This phrase was uttered by composer Alexei Grigoriev, father of Ivan Bessonov, who won the Eurovision Song Contest 2018 in Edinburgh. This is long and well argumenated phrase. This interview dealt with music and sports and how these concepts are related to each other now in our time. If this is the case, then it turns out that we live in an era of collective immense delusion. Passion for sports and football in particular - is this a vice? In other words, is this a fallacy? Well for now let's leave the sport alone. Let us touch on the passion of the Internet and mobile phones:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/World_without_internet_imagine
https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_to_avoid_smartphones_addiction_Practically
The overwhelming general opinion - if there will no Internet and Smartphones - this is a great misfortune. However, is this a delusion?
So, I want to ask - Do we live in an era of collective delusion?
I honestly don't see much citation of psychological theory in this discussion. One of the biggest issues is that we can't really define delusion based on truth, because we have no real way to evaluate what is and is not true.
Illusion) is a general disorder of thinking and is characterized by a belief that a wrong constant is not to be avoided even if the others around him think otherwise or emerge with compelling evidence denying it. It is a strong belief in the same patient, characterized by this belief that false or imaginary or based on deception. In the world of psychiatry, delusion is defined as a satisfactory belief (caused by disease or sick events), and the patient continues to hold on to his or her intuition despite the existence of evidence that proves the opposite of what he or she imagines. In pathology, a distinction is made between illusion and a belief based on falsehood, incomplete information, dogma, stupidity, perceptual perception, deception, or other effects that arise from perception. In traditional situations, a person becomes ill with a neurological illness Or psychiatric illness, even though it is not associated with a specific disease. Also, the person is delusional with many cases of illness (both physical and mental).
Marwah Firas Abdullah Al-Rawe, if you are having delusions because you're under a significant amount of distress, wouldn't that constitute a mental illness?
Hello all - Just found this difference between illusion and delusion
While illusion can be termed to be external, delusion can be called as internal.Delusion is a fixed belief, which can be either false or fanciful. Illusion is only distortion of the senses. While illusion is a physical phenomenon, delusion pertains to the mental aspect.
From this delusion, is not necessarily stress related. Also it seems to do with another person's judgements about a mental aspect the person must have shared. There are many things that are beyond our field of knowledge, so when we judge the thoughts (beliefs) of others, I feel we have to do it carefully and maybe probe quite a lot more before we come to any conclusion.
Warm regards Tina
Daniel Goldman writes "One of the biggest issues is that we can't really define delusion based on truth, because we have no real way to evaluate what is and is not true" and, although I have no objective way to evaluate the truth of this statement, I do agree with it.
:)
Whether a delusion is a symptom of illness has more to do with the social context and the effects of the belief than the actual content of the delusion.
.
Religious and spiritual or supernatural beliefs can never be tested objectively, however even in cultures that actively encourage altered states of consciousness and belief in spirits and/or magic, there are still words to describe what we would call “delusion” or "psychosis". .
For example in Yoruba the word "were" describes a "disease" that encompasses "hearing voices; trying to get others to hear or see something that isn't there; smelling, seeing, tasting, hearing, or feeling things that others say aren't there; laughing for no reason; talking too much or not at all; piling sticks for no reason; fear of JuJu (ie witchcraft) when no-one else believes there is any JuJu".
Similarly, amongst Inuit people the term "nuthkavihak" means "talking to oneself; answering oneself; talking to people who are not there; believing a child or partner was killed by magic when no-one else believes this; believing oneself to be an animal; not talking at all; running away for no reason; getting lost; hiding in strange places; drinking urine; becoming strong and violent for no reason; killing dogs or threatening people for no reason." .
See; "Readings in Abnormal Psychology"
edited by Jill M. Hooley, John M. Neale, Gerald C. Davison
Link to relevant pages;
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=jYhnhQ4X-e8C&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=nuthkavihak&source=bl&ots=nHaFfsem9K&sig=KcjhDG5Qp7_x6_pPuMmm8xv4nvs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=gNCeUZ-9CfC4iAflyIHYBQ&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=nuthkavihak&f=false
.
Note that in both these cultures, people are only described as delusional (or 'mad') if they exhibit several symptoms. Note also that most of these symptoms are only considered "madness" if nobody else believes in them- (your whole community may unite to kill a neighbor if enough of them believe s/he is a witch who is poisoning people- it’s only a symptom of illness if you are the only one holding the belief).
.
Whether any behavior or belief is a symptom of mental illness is culturally determined. Until December 1973 anyone who was same-sex attracted was defined by the DSM as being mentally ill, and it was part of the job of psychiatry to "cure" them. When the APA decided to remove homosexuality from the DSM, and accepted that homosexuality was not an illness, (but rather part of the normal range of human sexual expression), all those people suddenly became "well", even though their feelings, beliefs and behaviours had not changed at all. The process of depathologising homosexuality was not yet over- it wasn't until DSM-III-R in 1987 that the 'normal variance' view triumphed, but this is a very instructive example of how subjective and context dependent our definitions of mental illness are.
See; Article Out of DSM: Depathologizing Homosexuality
.
My answer to Daniel's original question, "Can you have delusion without mental illness?" is "Yes, of course you can". We all suffer a variety of delusions (about ourselves, about others, about the nature of the world). This is simply part of the human condition.
None of us have an objective view of the world or of ourselves, and we all carry delusions, some trivial and mundane, some extremely unusual or bizarre.
Ultimately, whether delusions are symptoms of mental ill-health is not dependent on the content or floridity of someone’s delusions. It is determined by whether the delusions are causing distress, dysfunction, suffering, or increased risk of injury or death to the person exhibiting the delusions, their family, and the community they live with.
Dear All,
Quantum physics has shown that at the microcosmic level atoms, which make up matter, “disappear” into a world of largely empty space consisting of vibrating energy and fields. For people who still hold a view that matter is solid, is this then a delusion? Many people who describe their inner experiences in energetic terms have been considered to be deluded by the psychological fraternity.
I therefore agree with the position of Daniel Goldman mentioned by Paul Dessauer - what is the truth? We have to be truly humble when trying to understand the inner experiences of others especially when we have not experienced them for ourself.
Warm regards Tina
When we view the behaviors of some politicians and the statements that they make which are based totally on fantasy (and lies) rather than reality you wonder if they are delusional or just putting up an act pandering to their (perhaps small) group of followers? Of course they will claim that they have no mental health issues and that they are the most rational beings. But think about it. Either they have mental illness (with a plethora of cognitive distortions) or they are just delusional without any other signs of mental illness. Or, are they pathological lairs with perhaps an Axis II problem?
Yes, a person can experience a state of delusion from sleep deprivation, substance use, or extreme threat to life. These are not Mental illnesses until they interfere with one’s ability to live. Therefore, an episodic delusion is not a mental illness. I hope this helped and thank you for your compassionate question.
Misconceptions are typical for a person, as well as sin (Jesus Christ), but putting a clamot on a person because of this is absurd. In the broadest context, the understanding of our world, the reality in which we live is a mythical reality, which for us is the most authentic and cannot be otherwise. The only thing is that you can create another myth and it is created by the media.
If you had been following the Brexit "debate" in the UK, you would not have needed to ask this question!
Анатолий Шаров, I'm not sure that I would consider a misconception to be a form of delusion. I think this interpretation weakens the meaning too much. Psychologically speaking, a delusion is not simply a position that is counter factual.
Dawn Lotti, your example is interesting, but it is something that I would indeed consider to be a mental illness. I don't think that a mental illness has to be persistent. Delusion caused by extreme sleep deprivation seems like an example of a mental illness to me, even if it can be cured by nothing more than getting a proper amount of rest.
Anthony G Gordon, do you have anything to add, which is based on actual psychological theory? If you simply wish you push your political ideology, you are welcome to comment on the myriad reddit posts on the topic or Brexit.
The answer to your question depends on the definitions of the terms used. There is a simple answer to your question (for the layman) , but you now want it framed within a more complex, narrower interpretation - what a psychologist would think.
Psychology and psychiatry definitions and practices are based on whether a persons character, mood, disposition, action and/or danger to the 'normal' population needs to be managed. They may exhibit all these 'symptoms' for a valid reason unrelated to delusional thoughts. In fact delusion is only one part of the DSM-5 collection of 'disorders' that are treated by psychiatrists. Can it be assumed therefore that psychiatry does not think that every mental illness involves delusional thoughts?
If all your family had just been killed, as occurs in many war zones every day, then your reasonable reaction may be the same as a delusional person going through a psychotic episode.
Your question now becomes a cyclic conundrum of terminology and conditional logic.
The concept of 'Delusion' has perhaps tended to become ubiquitous and expedient as a tool for argument rendered into analogy in many cases. In that sense a form of agnosticism can be helpful occasionally since - just for instance - a good science collaborator may well be religious. Thus we'd quickly see that some of the archetypal atheist attitudes can be counter productive for they will largely judge a persons grasp based on what actually becomes a random concept concerning delusion. Then of course such a usage can only negate itself should a religiously inclined scientist possess a rationale among equals. Being so this statement doesn't nullify atheism, it just helps to illustrate that often too much disorder exists regarding the sense of what delusion is in that context and others.
If we take analytical psychology for another instance, at least here whilst we remain bereft of objective reasoning, we do at least have compelling logics. From its standpoint we have a conscious, unconscious and subconscious. From here we can speculate that the conscious needs to know what is real, whilst the other two are vessels of stereotyped memory scenes and symbols which do not essentially require it. This should not mean that the 'unconscious' shall be all delusional whilst it goes about its processes, but certainly it equally has the potential whilst our conscious mind chooses what is real or not.
Various misconceived ideas enable people to either outright fake or perform a very good unconscious emulate schizophrenia by being either naturally traumatised or even stressed into acting in delusional ways. In this sense it might be true to say that several states of an artificial delusion can take place where a subject may be consciously aware that their behaviour isn't authentic. Sometimes that can manifest in the form of fantasy stories later to be discovered as untrue. But if we consider what can happen should someone merely claim to be hearing voices - sectioning - then this form of differentiation is clinically important. It is also fiscally important, and also critical to the actual mental health of the subject. Who could just be having a psychological disturbance where environmental factors such as being discovered a fantasist.
It suffices it to say then that persons certainly can invoke the sense of delusion without having them, that delusion is an extremely mutable term.
So returning to the tools of analytical psychology, it is perhaps crucial to obtain a sense of what the conscious mind is genuinely aware of in relation to the unconscious. If a mind absolutely cannot tell the difference between leaks of unconscious phenomena and central consciousness then maybe there are actual delusions present.
A potential dichotomy exists where fundamentally it could depend on ones own definition of delusion the phenomenon itself. If every delusion is to be understood as a state contrary to that considered as normal mental health, then we sail close to the idea that the mind is broken. If not we are closer to the concept that the psych is traumatised in some way. Thus - although a universal understanding might be hard to unify by analytical psychology the question might be does one have to be a universalist ?. At least a promised 'topology' in logic is available for useful outlines - the crucial thing is are persons actually deluded or misguided.
Therefore so long as delusion isn't considered a significant mental illness unless reasonably found otherwise, i feel it is entirely possible to illustrate the symptoms of delusion without being mentally ill. Although eventually i'd feel equally that a threshold is one day crossed where self misguided delusions inevitably help persons enter poorer states such as depression and so on.
Anthony G Gordon - if we are straying into political affects then describe its collective psychology. What is your non rhetorical non political definition of the mass remain psych & the mass leave psych?
Here is a good example of a primary delusion in mentally normal people (at least to begin with).
Many people as a result of ear diseases hear peculiar noises in their ears or head. Depending on the noise, the first interpretation is that someone is playing music, a machine is turned on, the wind is making a funny noise, etc. If this noise is unilateral, or there are other ear symptoms or history of ear disease then the true situation soon clarifies. However, in some people the noise can only be explained by some agency pursuing them or taunting them with some infernal machine, and delusion transforms into long-term paranoia. I recall a very sad case on the Internet some years ago where a man was desperately trying to convince his deluded brother that his ears were playing up, and that no one was trying to torment him with peculiar noises.
Many people as a result of ear diseases hear peculiar noises in their ears or head.
What you're describing is tinnitus. But is this pathology generally considered a form of delusion? Do you have a source indicating such classification?
Here is a good summary of the Brexit debacle by an economist who formulates it in psychological terms. I have highlighted examples of psychological errors, ranging from delusions to biases with no clear distinction. However this disordered thinking is categorised, psychologists ought to have a major input into the debate.
"The “clean break” illusion: why a No Deal Brexit will not be the end of anything
KRISTIAN NIEMIETZ 10 APRIL 2019 INSTITUTE OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS > BLOG > POLICIES > ECONOMIC THEORY
According to a recent YouGov survey, one in four people think a No Deal Brexit would be a good outcome, and another 13 per cent see at as at least acceptable. The option of leaving the EU without a deal enjoys the support of a significant minority, both on its own terms, and when directly pitched against other options.
Does this mean that there is a widespread appetite for the hardest of Hard Brexits?
Articles which try to second-guess what the participants of a survey “really” meant are often a bit tedious, because there is always a danger that the motives the author attributes to people are simply their own projections. But here we go – this is one of those articles. My impression is that the apparent popularity of a No Deal Brexit is, to a large extent, a reflection of Brexit fatigue. Brexit is crowding out almost everything else, it feels never-ending, it doesn’t seem to be going anywhere, and it’s wearing people out.
Let’s face it: Brexit isn’t interesting anymore. We’ve had (or at least heard) all the arguments one can possibly have about the subject.
Hence the allure of No Deal, which comes with the promise of putting an end to the whole thing, at last. Better a painful break than to draw out the agony. It may not be pretty, but at least it will finally be over.
Let’s ignore the elephant in the room, that is, the question whether leaving without a deal really will be as catastrophic as some forecasts suggest, or whether it will be no worse than a garden-variety recession. This article is not about that. It’s about the “clean break” illusion. A No Deal Brexit will not be the end of anything. Even if it turns out that the warnings about its short-term impact were wildly over the top, a No Deal Brexit will not make the issue go away.
What would happen next? Why, in no time, the usual suspects would be back on the telly, screaming betrayal. They would say that those measures are taking us half-way back into the EU, that this is not what 17.4 million people voted for, that this is the work of sneering metropolitan elitist liberal Remoaners (or now: Rejoiners) trying to overturn the will of The People, and so on.
Those who believe that leaving without a deal represents some sort of shortcut misunderstand why Brexit is so polarising. It is not that we agree on an end state, and just disagree on how best to get there. We disagree on the end state itself. We disagree, fundamentally, over what sort of relationship with the EU we ultimately want, with the dividing lines running not just between Leavers and Remainers, but also within each camp. These disagreements will not go away. Whether we negotiate as a member who is on their way out, or as a non-member who is looking to formalise the relationship from the outside, is ultimately not that important.
The fundamental trade-offs are the same either way. If we insist on tightly controlled immigration, we cannot have unimpeded access to the Single Market. If we do not want any regulatory alignment, we will have to accept some duplication of regulatory compliance costs. If we want to diverge from the EU in terms of external trade, arrangements at the Irish border will have to reflect the fact that this is now a border between two different customs territories. And so on. There are trade-offs in a lot of areas, and they are here to stay.
And thus, so are our Brexit arguments. Sure, if we left without a deal, the word “Brexit” itself might become obsolete. But a lot of what is currently going on around that word would not.
So if you want Brexit to be over soon, don’t pin your hopes on No Deal. Don’t pin your hopes on anything, in fact. We are in it for the long haul. You can No Deal any time you like, but you can never leave.
This article was first published on CapX.
DR KRISTIAN NIEMIETZ
HEAD OF POLITICAL ECONOMY
"What you're describing is tinnitus. But is this pathology generally considered a form of delusion? Do you have a source indicating such classification?"
Many of these patients below had noises in the ears which otologists would label as tinnitus. Expert psychiatrists however labelled many of these as hallucinations. I actually doubt if auditory hallucinations exist, rather they are sensory illusions, which can easily develop into delusions, occasionally long-lasting:
"Psychol Med
- Volume 49, Issue 1
- January 2019 , pp. 132-139
Auditory hallucinations in adults with hearing impairment: a large prevalence study
- M. M. J. Linszen (a1) (a2) (a3), G. A. van Zanten (a4), R. J. Teunisse (a5), R. M. Brouwer (a1) ...
- https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291718000594
- Published online: 20 March 2018
AbstractBackground
Similar to visual hallucinations in visually impaired patients, auditory hallucinations are often suggested to occur in adults with hearing impairment. However, research on this association is limited. This observational, cross-sectional study tested whether auditory hallucinations are associated with hearing impairment, by assessing their prevalence in an adult population with various degrees of objectified hearing impairment.
Methods
Hallucination presence was determined in 1007 subjects aged 18–92, who were referred for audiometric testing to the Department of ENT-Audiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands. The presence and severity of hearing impairment were calculated using mean air conduction thresholds from the most recent pure tone audiometry.
Results
Out of 829 participants with hearing impairment, 16.2% (n = 134) had experienced auditory hallucinations in the past 4 weeks; significantly more than the non-impaired group [5.8%; n = 10/173; p < 0.001, odds ratio 3.2 (95% confidence interval 1.6–6.2)]. Prevalence of auditory hallucinations significantly increased with categorized severity of impairment, with rates up to 24% in the most profoundly impaired group (p < 0.001). The corrected odds of hallucination presence increased 1.02 times for each dB of impairment in the best ear. Auditory hallucinations mostly consisted of voices (51%), music (36%), and doorbells or telephones (24%).
Conclusions
Our findings reveal that auditory hallucinations are common among patients with hearing impairment, and increase with impairment severity. Although more research on potential confounding factors is necessary, clinicians should be aware of this phenomenon, by inquiring after hallucinations in hearing-impaired patients and, conversely, assessing hearing impairment in patients with auditory hallucinations, since it may be a treatable factor."
Yes. Delusions can exist without mental illness. Religion is not a delusion.
Respectfully Daniel Goldman,
For a diagnosis of delusional disorder, there needs to be a the presence of delusion for at least a 1-month time period (DSM 5, 2013). Your question, Does the state of being delusional imply being mentally ill? Is vague, due to no reference of duration. An episodic (short in duration) delusion would not meet criteria for a delusional disorder. Therefore, a person can experience delusion without a mental illness, or maybe I am experiencing a delusion while writing this post. Perhaps, re-read the post. I see 3 present quandaries; Can you have delusion without mental illness? delusion as it pertains to a religious assertion, and does the state of being delusional imply being mentally ill?
If you believe in something that no one can talk you out of (for instance that your baby is the most beautiful, the cleverest, most lovable baby in the world) and no one other than you shares this particular belief, that's a delusion and, no, you're not mentally ill. This particular delusion lasts for about 18 months.
Delusion is different from mental illness, mental illness is based on functions of mind, delusion based on accurate knowledge about the specific thing or power.
> delusion based on accurate knowledge about the specific thing or power.
Delusion isn't usually defined this way, Siddappa Naragatti, and there's a good reason why. By this definition, Newton was delusional because he accepted Newtonian physics, which is now falsified. We would also have to know what is accurate knowledge. Does this analysis really make sense?
Sir I agree with you but sometimes delutors aim is good, that's for the shake of wellbeing of the family, the society, the state, the nation, or the world it is counted as a good but it is not the mental illness. But still its not the better way to implement.
"Religion is not a delusion"
Every religion regards competing religions as delusions.
Delusion may, in fact, have some cultural implications. I have seen patients in my practice who by our standards would have delusions. However, in their culture what they were experiencing was within normal limits. That didn't mean that they weren't depressed, anxious, having family issues or some trauma related problem.
Really Anthony G Gordon? Does Shinto regard other religions as delusion? Does Buddhism or Taoism? Does Wicca?
The part of a religious belief which doesn't let a person test its validity through evidence is sometimes seen as a delusion. Delusional individuals are biased towards evidence that disconfirms their delusional belief. If the same quality is present in any other belief, whether religious or not, it would appear as a delusion. Conviction with belief looks like a delusion.
Tarun Verma, isn't everyone, at least to a degree, opposed to changes in their beliefs? If a person's world view was updated with every single piece of information, a person would never be able to make a decision.
Margot Wiesinger Smith, can you attach some psychological theory to your statement? If you're here to express your politics, quite frankly, please do that on reddit instead. This question is one which seeks a scientific answer.
@Daniel Goldman, to make decisions, one doesn't need a belief. Decisions are made on hypothetical assertions too. The kind of belief we are talking about refers to some theme of self-illusionment where the individual holding the belief may have a desire to protect some self-interest in face of contradictory evidence to the level of feeling a destruction, if proved wrong. In case of delusion, this happens at the cost of logic and rationality.
Anthony G Gordon - Thank you for posting the shrewd observations of Mr Niemietz. I read with a some interest, though such requires somewhat of an healthy appetite for the topic which i lack. All i can say is that sincerely i saw economic and political laypersons stating very similar 3 years ago. Being so it seems to suggest that something tangible about the habit of its protagonists is the real source of such insight. I.E there seemed to be an inevitable element rather than sagacity, furthermore the man spoke little regarding the mass psychosis you'd inferred.
Overall i'd find it hard to see how his style of exploration helps when questioning the nature of delusion. I'd not disagree there are elements, it is just that it is difficult to pinpoint reliable definitions as manipulative forces seem to be acting upon the two remain / leave masses. For to truly consider 'brexit fatigue' - both political ontologies might well be causing a mass psychological effect one could almost infer is analogous to waterboarding sleep deprived mass consciousness into confusion and submission. In other words we just do not know the true motives concerning any of these establishment's well enough, but of course many trust given ontology on either side.
The most prevalent theory i have seen mentioned throughout this most tedious political dogma is cognitive dissonance. Most of the time that has been aimed ad hominem. However if applied sensibly, at least the theory could be cited as a potential pivot should ones spin doctoring seek mass affect in a neuro linguistic sense.
When spiral doctors attempt to manipulate many minds across the MSM there are words / sentences that is certain. In order to win minds a neural process has to result that is absolutely reasonable. The altering of views may well be an affect with aspects similar to Festingers suggestion therefore so is CD reasonable so long as a mode or adaptation of the theory is selected.
How useful these suggestions are is anyones guess, but at least its exploration is not political.
Regards
Carl L Tishler
You cultural remark added somewhat of a poignant perspective i'd feel. To follow on from them in respect of an independent UK research which took place.
Spiritualism for instance is a recognised religion with a body and union which allowed psychological researchers in concerning whether their beliefs were delusional. It concluded they were not, with perhaps much of this finding having concentrated on the dichotomy attached to what normality is.
Of course it shall have been a difficult dilemma to have reached the opposite conclusion given that the Uk Government fully acknowledges this religion. However the research was psychological and extensive in seeking its findings in such a phenomenological minefield.
So there it was, seems the cultural considerations were greater than a desire to attribute either delusion or mental illness to speaking with the dead. I can only assume these researchers indeed found something important with respect to derivative's in rationale inevitable in subcultural communities.
As I stated in my previous answer, whether a delusion is a symptom of illness has more to do with the social and cultural context, and whether the belief causes distress, dysfunction or risk to the person and others, than on the actual content of the delusion.
Example:
A few years ago I had a young woman from a remote indigenous community divulge that her dead grandmother came to her and talked with her every night while she slept.
Is this a worrying symptom of mental illness, (potentially involving command hallucinations)?
Is she reporting her dreams as literal events?
Is this a perfectly normal cultural manifestation of her grief, reassuring and hopeful in it's expression of spiritual continuity with her culture and her kin?
The easiest way to find out is to see how other people in her community respond to her reported conversations with 'Gran'.
There is quite a good RG discussion on the nature of delusion here;
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_constitutes_a_bizarre_delusion_that_meets_Criteria_A_for_a_DSM-IV_diagnosis_of_schizophrenia
Tarun Verma, we can indeed use suppositions and assumptions, but I doubt that most people rely exclusively on them. Trust me, it becomes very difficult to get through life when you're constantly doubting even the most basic positions, including whether or not anyone other than you even exists.
"Really Anthony G Gordon? Does Shinto regard other religions as delusion? Does Buddhism or Taoism? Does Wicca?"
Not sure. I was thinking about the main religions, the ones causing havoc in the Middle East.
You said that "every religion regards competing religions as delusions." So you define religion based off of basically two religions that have existed for about 1% of religion's existence, knowing nothing about all the other thousands upon thousands of religions of the world.
Absurd!
I do not consider dementia a mental illness, in that it is clearly attributable to definite damage to the brain:
"[Moggach] found levity during her mother's struggle with dementia. On one occasion, her mother swore that she'd been visited by two men in the night. These imaginary visitors had been under the bed and in the wardrobe, but the old lady was not intimidated. "Debbie," she said, "I've never believed in threesomes and I'm not going to start now."
The Times April 17 2019 p15
"So you define religion based off of basically two religions that have existed for about 1% of religion's existence, knowing nothing about all the other thousands upon thousands of religions of the world."
I've already said my remarks should be confined to the main religions.
In the Middle East, ISIS is killing Christians and the wrong kind on Moslems; the Haredi reject modern Judaism and are dragging Israel to the far right; the West deluded itself into thinking it could improve matters by embarking on a modern Christian crusade led by Bush and Blair.
These three religions have delusionary beliefs about each other and are responsible for most of the problems in the world today.
If one will refer to these three religions of middle East, then delusion seems a valid explanation to their behaviors of violence and control. However, it is unfortunate if all religions are brought under same umbrella.
> These three religions have delusionary beliefs about each other and are responsible for most of the problems in the world today.
Do not say "all religion" when you mean three out of literally thousands and what beliefs are delusional in these three religions which you call "main" even though they have only existed for a few thousand years? Let's start with Judaism, since it's the oldest of the three. What delusions do you say Judaism expresses?
A delusion is a belief that is clearly false and that indicates an abnormality in the affected person’s content of thought. The false belief is not accounted for by the person’s cultural or religious background or his or her level of intelligence. The key feature of a delusion is the degree to which the person is convinced that the belief is true. A person with a delusion will hold firmly to the belief regardless of evidence to the contrary.
So the answer to your question is we cannot have delusions in physiological conditions and the followers of any religion are not sick, because religion is part of the culture of the social net or community they are part of. The presence of delusions always indicates an alteration of physiological homeostasis (e.g. mental disease, use of substances etc.)
Francesco Lusciano, this definition relies in the ability to know whether something is true or false. Also, to whom must it be clear? Evidence is, by its very nature, dependent on the cultural foundation that we use to evaluate it.
I do agree with you that a mental illness, as well as a delusion, both require some kind of alteration or movement away from physiological homeostatis of the mind.
Daniel Goldman The question is not whether a thing is true or false, but whether a person is sick or not. If we assume the existence of any God to be false, then how many billions of mad people are there in the world?
That's why it's unreasonable to define delusion based off what is true or false.
"What delusions do you say Judaism expresses?"
I am not a theologian! I suggest you check with Rabbis in Israel, where I am sure you will find little agreement as to what is common belief and what is delusion.
Do not claim that these religions have delusions if you cannot even list one. Your commentary is in no way academic and it simply borders on bigotry.
Daniel Goldman , you may be arguing and debating here with some purpose, but the question is quite obvious and it seems that answers are already clear to you as well as readers.
Religion is not a delusion - why you need to debate on this ? Psychological definitions of delusions and mental illness do not indicate that religious beliefs are delusional in nature - what else you are trying to prove or seek ?
Your question states " A common assertion against religion is that it is delusion", - but who asserts that? Scientific community or philosophers? I don't think scientists would ever call religion a delusion. Psychologists, including me, are very well aware that religion is not delusion. Then who are these common people that are making this common assertion?
You state that but in order to protect themselves from seeming too bigoted, a lot of people who make this assertion about religion also demand that a delusion doesn't have to imply a mental illness - Really ?????? Do you think religious people who are trying to defend themselves about their delusion are indicating that they are not mentally ill ? Or people who assert this are somehow trying to protect religious people by diplomatically justifying them and finding a middle ground to the debate so that religions can be saved ?
Your question is based on illegitimate assumptions and you seem to be attempting to find proofs for an already stated conclusion. Do you want to look for a definition of delusion ? DSM clearly mentions that, you can read from there.
Does the state of being delusional imply being mentally ill? - In literal way, the answer is YES. Because a state of being delusional is psychopathological and unhealthy, and needs intervention. This implies we are referring about a person who is in a mental state where thinking is occupied with delusional themes. State of being delusional is obviously not normal, as the statement obviously indicates that. The person is not in a state of reality because being delusional deviates him/her from reality. Being delusional - means the whole person is effected. On the contrary, having a delusional belief seems more normal. Having a delusion is also still more on normal side of the continuum. So to answer your question, state of being delusional implies mental illness but having a delusional belief does not imply mental illness. Now you can put religious beliefs into this new category that I described. When viewed across a continuum, having a belief of delusional nature and being delusional are opposite extremes.
"What delusions do you say Judaism expresses? "
In general, there is either no God, one God, or many gods. Two of these beliefs must be delusional (though not indicative of mental illness), but which will vary from country to country:
- "Jerusalem Post
- World News
HAREDI MEDIA HIGHLIGHTS MEDIEVAL BURNING OF TALMUD AFTER NOTRE-DAME FIRE
Some prominent rabbis, from medieval to modern times, have categorized Christianity as “idol worship,” due to concerns over whether Christianity fulfills Judaism’s definition of monotheism.
BY JEREMY SHARON APRIL 18, 2019 04:46 2 minute read...
Two haredi news outlets highlighted the 13th century burning of 24 cartloads of Talmudic manuscripts in Paris following the severe fire damage caused to the Notre-Dame Cathedral on Monday. The JDN news website went a step further and seemingly ascribed divine justice to the burning of the cathedral when it cited a phrase from Jewish liturgy, “and evil in its entirety will go up like smoke,” after noting in its Monday night report that the fires were yet to be brought under control...
byIt also headlined its article “Paris: Notre-Dame church which serves as a house of idol worship, goes up in flames.” "
It's poor science to define delusion in such a way that we would need to know what is true before assigning the status of delusion. Moreover, if you don't know which of those three are delusional, then strong atheism could very well be the delusion, but you say that it is Judaism that is the delusion. Basically, you're trying to express your own religious views, while attacking other religious people. And yes, you are religious. Preprint On Religious Rejectionism
The cognitive and cultural signatures of Religious Rejectionism match those of Christianity and probably other religions. So if the cognitive signatures match, mustn't we say that neither OR BOTH are delusions?
The rest of your commentary seems to be trying to use what some non-psychologist non-anthropologist people said, in a discussion about psychological and anthropological theory.
Mary V. Seeman, you're correct, but that's why it is so very important to think of this discussion from an academic viewpoint. We're on ResearchGate, not reddit. The whole point is that this is a social network of academics. Our discussions need to maintain a higher standard.
"Basically, you're trying to express your own religious views"
I don't see how my own (non)religious views are at all relevant. I rely on the opinions of some religionists about beliefs of other religions. Logically, they can't all be correct. My argument does not depend on the correctness of any specific belief.
"Correctness is not a proper measure of delusion."
Yes, in general, but surely there are some delusions that are manifestly untrue, eg that I am the King of England. Beliefs can hardly be proved to be true, but when one belief contradicts another belief, one at least must be untrue.
"From Wikipedia..
The Three Christs of Ypsilanti (1964) is a book-length psychiatric case study by Milton Rokeach, concerning his experiment on a group of three paranoid schizophrenics at Ypsilanti State Hospital[1] in Ypsilanti, Michigan. The book details the interactions of the three patients, Clyde Benson, Joseph Cassel, and Leon Gabor, who each believed himself to be Jesus Christ....
Rokeach got the idea from an article in Harper's Magazine describing two women who both believed they were the Virgin Mary. After being assigned as psychiatric hospital roommates, one of the women recovered from her delusion as a result of conversations with the roommate and was discharged.[2] As a similar study of delusional belief systems, Rokeach brought together three men who each claimed to be Jesus Christ and confronted them with one another's conflicting claims, while encouraging them to interact personally as a support group. Rokeach also attempted to manipulate other aspects of their delusions by inventing messages from imaginary characters. He did not, as he had hoped, provoke any lessening of the patients' delusions, but did document a number of changes in their beliefs.
While initially the three patients quarreled over who was holier and reached the point of physical altercation, they eventually each explained away the other two as being patients with a mental disability in a hospital, or dead and being operated by machines.[3] The graduate students who worked with Rokeach on the project have been strongly critical of the morality of the project because of the amount of dishonesty and manipulation by Rokeach and the amount of distress experienced by the patients.[2] Rokeach added a comment in the final revision of the book that, while the experiment did not cure any of the three Christs, "It did cure me of my godlike delusion that I could manipulate them out of their beliefs.""
=============================================================
Comment
Psychiatrists cannot be sure that someone is not the Second Coming. Certainly, they are wasting their time trying to reason with their patients. However, it is surely clear that at least two of the above (but which two?) must be mistaken.
Thank you for reminding me of The Three Christs of Ypsilanti . I remember reading it and it had a big effect on me! I've often been in groups with several delusional patients talking about their various delusions and no one ever believes the delusions of the others. Each one tells the others that they are fooling themselves but that doesn't at all shake them from their own delusion. It's a very interesting phenomenon.
"I've often been in groups with several delusional patients talking about their various delusions and no one ever believes the delusions of the others."
As opposed to cults, where most members are probably not mentally ill, yet where everyone believes the delusions of the others.
There is a strong case for defining a syndrome of collective psychosis with collective delusions (as below). Psychiatrists will argue that this syndrome should not be in the DSM as they deal with individuals, not groups or societies. My guess is that the harm to societies and nations done by group psychoses outweighs the aggregated costs of individual psychoses. Mental health professionals should engage in this wider debate and not just leave it to popular writers. They might also learn something about delusions by comparing group and individual versions.
“This epidemic of self-victimization is actually an illness… a new kind of mania”
Bret Easton Ellis...
The Sunday Times, April 21 2019, 12:01am
By 2014, I’d been living with a millennial for almost five years (22 years my junior), and I was alternately charmed and exasperated by how he and his friends lived their lives. I had been occasionally tweeting about my amusement and frustration under the banner “generation wuss”. My huge generalities touched on millennials’ oversensitivity, their sense of entitlement, their insistence that they were always right despite sometimes overwhelming proof to the contrary, their failure to consider anything within its context, their joint tendencies of overreaction and passive-aggressive positivity — incidentally, all of these misdemeanours happening only sometimes, and possibly exacerbated by the meds many this age had been fed since childhood by overprotective helicopter moms and dads mapping their every move...
Even my boyfriend agreed that generation wuss was far too sensitive, especially when facing any criticism. Unlike any previous generation, they had so many outlets to display whatever they wanted (thoughts, feelings, art) that it often went — unfettered, unedited — instantly and globally everywhere, and because of this, a lot of the time it tended to seem rushed and kind of shitty.
When millennials were criticised for this sort of content, or for anything, really, they seemed to get so defensive they either collapsed into a spiralling depression or lashed out at the critical parties and called them haters, contrarians, trolls...
But if you’re a smart person who happens to be so traumatised by something that you refer to yourself in conversation as a “survivor-victim”, you probably should contact the National Centre for Victims and ask them for help. If you’re an adult who can’t read Shakespeare or Melville or Toni Morrison because it might trigger something harmful and such texts could damage your hope to define yourself through your victimisation, then you need to see a doctor, get into immersion therapy or take some meds. If you feel you’re experiencing “micro-aggressions” ... then you need to seek professional help...
This widespread epidemic of self-victimisation is actually an illness. It’s something one needs to resolve in order to participate in society, because otherwise one’s not only harming oneself but also seriously annoying family and friends, neighbours and strangers who haven’t victimised themselves. The fact that one can’t listen to a joke or view specific imagery... is a new kind of mania, a psychosis that the culture has been coddling.
This delusion encourages people to think that life should be a smooth utopia designed and built for their fragile and exacting sensibilities and in essence encourages them to remain a child for ever, living within a fairy tale of good intentions. It’s impossible for a child or an adolescent to move past certain traumas and pain, though not necessarily for an adult..."
© Bret Easton Ellis 2019. Extracted from White (Picador £16.99), published on May 2
"DOMINIC LAWSON: It's totally delusional - and cynical - for Labour to claim it has a magic wand to solve Brexit
By DOMINIC LAWSON FOR THE DAILY MAIL
PUBLISHED: 01:42, 6 May 2019 | UPDATED: 11:59, 6 May 2019
Delusional is the only word for it. I am referring to Labour's magic recipe for an agreement with the Government to enable Brexit — almost three years after the country voted to leave the EU."
Comment
I agree. And it is by no means the only example of a delusion peddled by all sides in the Brexit debacle. For example, a great many people, including those I would normally regard as sensibles, assert that another EU referendum (the third!) would resolve matters and put an end to the chaos.
Whether someone is deluded depends on the context. The fewer people that endorse their belief, the more likely they are to be mentally ill. If their view is popular though demonstrably illogical, then it is society that is psychotic or at least hopelessly irrational. It boils down to a question of numbers and proportions.
yes one can be delusional without being mentally ill.However in different cultures it is viewed as mentally ill or one being insane.
If delusion alone constitutes mental illness then surely everyone is mentally ill? Delusions allow us to engage with others in society and are imperative to our ability to survive. Some might say everything is a delusion, and that madness thereby is simply a higher form of sanity.
Philosophers have long argued as to what is reality? Perhaps it is all delusion.
Respected Suaad Hadi Al-Taai,
please stop clogging the Research Gate with your standard phrases like "It's very important question" and "Good". All your answers (at the moment already more than 200) consist solely of these two phrases, is it really not disgusting. Sorry to remind you of this, but someone has to do it.
There is an article in the May 27,2019 issue of The New Yorker on the evolution of psychiatry which touches on this question.
When we think about psychopathology, fundamental question seems to be, when does the disease start... In our personal thinking we can distinguish different pathologies, exempli gratia, a song obsession, sometimes autovanitative thinking et c. The answer is coined by the term: broad spectrum of psychiatric normality. All of us can develop delusions ( for example during falling in love), hallucinations (hypnagogic e.g.), or other psychiatric symptoms, but if they are not harmful and, what is most important I think, recognizable for society (our friends, family et c) it can't be assesed as a psychiatric disturbance.
Przemyslaw Zakowicz In psychiatric psychopathology when we talk about delusion we refer to false beliefs. We'd better call the ones you mentioned "delusions during falling in love" disappointements instead. Anyway I agree with you when you say that when psychiatric symptoms are not harmful and recognizable for society (our friends, family et c) it can't be assesed as a psychiatric disturbance.
In fact the most important thing, beyond the symptoms, to do diagnosis and to assess the severity of the disease is the impairment of social functioning.
Delusion which is referred to as a fixed false belief held by an individual towards a situation, event, object or persons. It is very challenging when trying to change how a person thinks or views situations. However, every rational being must be able to adjust to changes when necessary and be able to have a positive mindset towards events, situations or persons. In my opinion an individual with a fixed false belief can be said to have some amount of mental illness which may have been precipitated by the onset of a mental condition
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology