The idea that religion is a psychiatric problem

[Bovril]

The more strident atheists on the board and in the world at large occasionally make comparisons between religious belief and psychiatric illness. I'm going to assume that they are not just trying to make meaningless slurs, but think they have some sort of a point.
Although these people's understanding of religion and psychiatic illness apears not to be very great, they have latched on to the idea that religion is some sort of psychosis, and have compared it to the psychotic aspects of schizophrenia (though perhaps unknowingly).
One of the hallmarks of psychosis, perception without external physical stimuli, is often compared with religious experience. However, such 'halucinations' are a poor indicator of mental illness, since the majority of people who experience them (even if you exclude those cases that can be explained by nuerological damage or abnormality) are in no way mentally ill. Most 'halucinations' are not maladaptive, a fact that should be readily apparant when one takes into account that about 40% of people report having had hallucinatory experiences.
However, such experiences are certainly not required to indicate psychotic mental illness. Irrational thoughts that cannot be displaced by rational argument are also indicators. Now let us assume that religious belief is irrational and not suseptible to rational argument. This still does not indicate psychosis, because for such beliefs to be psychotic they would have to A) cause significant alarm or distress or B) significantly reduce a person's ability to function in one or more important areas of their lives. Religious beliefs typically cannot be characterised by either criterion. What is more, such beliefs would have to not be culturally sanctioned, and since religious beliefs almost always are, they cannot be considered psychotic.
It should be noted that oftentimes psychotic beliefs or halucinations do include religious elements. However, such elements are rarely consistent either with the beliefs of the person before psychosis, or with the beliefs of the religious community from with elements of the psychotic's delutions are borrowed.

In conclution, even if we restrict ourselves to an entirely physicalistic veiw of reality and assume that religion is obviously irrational, there is absolutely no reason to equate religion and religious belief with mental illness.

[motiv-8]

Clearly religion is a product of mass hysteria, and Christianity in particular was created from a hallucinogenic mushroom.

[Ummon]

I would side with Peter Giovacchini too, who, from a psychoanalytic point of view, in his seminal work on Schizophrenia, also asserted that creativity and narcissistic disorders which decompensate in more or less stable psychoses, have something in common, although the latter surely suffer of a limited "nurturing matrix" or "frame", condition that is unfavourable for thought activities and any other transitional space (à la Winnicott).

[Tony83]

Most cultures tend to develop a "belief" system of one form or another, so they obviously serve a fundamental human need (usually to explain the unexplainable). And there can be no doubt that the structures that evolve around these beliefs can be used as a means of domination by the less than scrupulous. There is also no question that religions can attract people strongly disposed towards fanaticism, but to say that those who believe in a God are psychotic is grossly unfair.

As an atheist myself, I sometimes think that some of my more religious friends can be a bit irrational in their beliefs, but there is no way that I would consider them as "nutters"! People should be free to believe, or not believe, as their consciences dictate.

[chriscase]

I would side with Peter Giovacchini too, who, from a psychoanalytic point of view, in his seminal work on Schizophrenia, also asserted that creativity and narcissistic disorders which decompensate in more or less stable psychoses, have something in common, although the latter surely suffer of a limited "nurturing matrix" or "frame", condition that is unfavourable for thought activities and any other transitional space (à la Winnicott).

Is this really relevant to religious content? I would go more with Grof and non-ordinary states of consciousness, but of course that's what I'm familiar with.

To the OP, I would say the religious framework is a two-edged sword for someone who is grappling with non-ordinary states of consciousness. The religious framework is better equipped than a generic secular worldview, because the content of such states can be so overwhelming, so rich in symbolism, and so visceral in its impact, an unprepared person can really go into a tailspin with very serious consequences. However, a rigid religious framework is also dangerous, because much of the transpersonal content one can encounter has overt demonic and sacrilegious themes. For this reason, I believe a more sophisticated, secular framework such as Grof's cartography of the psyche is the most useful.

As to the source of the "psychosis", it is one of the tragedies of modern medicine that so many potentially transformational events are interpreted as psychosis and treated pharmaceutically. But I firmly believe that such states of consciousness (with the obvious exception of physiological and chemical disorders) are innate and perfectly natural, even necessary to the psychological growth of every individual. Thus the question is not how religion or secularism causes such an event, but rather how such a framework can help.

[Nietzsche]

As to the source of the "psychosis", it is one of the tragedies of modern medicine that so many potentially transformational events are interpreted as psychosis and treated pharmaceutically. But I firmly believe that such states of consciousness (with the obvious exception of physiological and chemical disorders) are innate and perfectly natural, even necessary to the psychological growth of every individual. Thus the question is not how religion or secularism causes such an event, but rather how such a framework can help.

Such interpretations are directly linked to the dominant worldview in the field of psychology. Initial assumptions determine diagnosis. Astute observation sir.

For the OP. What if the situation is reverse? What if lack of such "hallucinations" are a problem? I'm only playing devil's advocate here. I don't mean to ignore your premises.

I think under any suitable set of circumstances, the rationality of anything can be brought into question. It all depends on how the observer frames the circumstance.

[Ummon]

Is this really relevant to religious content? I would go more with Grof and non-ordinary states of consciousness, but of course that's what I'm familiar with.

The ability to play with concepts to construct meaningful interpretations works both at metaphoric level and at scientific level. Such ability relies in a penchant to devote time and energy to internal objects, and in the capacity to give them salience in comparison to external events, which are both common between illness and genius.

The argument is infact quite complicated.

Many conceptualizations in psychoanlysis are working metaphors, that includes most parallel accounts of creativity. That of course, is a bit off topic though.

[Broken Pope]

You don't have to be mad to persuade yourself of the truth of something for which there is no proof.

... The only connection is that in so doing you present some behavioural traits in common with a person who has lost contact with physical reality. (A voluntary psychosis if you will.)

[chriscase]

The ability to play with concepts to construct meaningful interpretations works both at metaphoric level and at scientific level. Such ability relies in a penchant to devote time and energy to internal objects, and in the capacity to give them salience in comparison to external events, which are both common between illness and genius.

Ok, so what you are saying is that similarities between religious thought and psychosis are no more significant than similarities between psychosis and genius. Thus the similarities are no more sufficient to associate religion with psychosis than to associate it with genius. Is that where you are going?

[Ummon]

Ok, so what you are saying is that similarities between religious thought and psychosis are no more significant than similarities between psychosis and genius. Thus the similarities are no more sufficient to associate religion with psychosis than to associate it with genius. Is that where you are going?

I am more properly asserting that if genius and mental illness can have something in common, we do not nonetheless disparage genius because it has something in common with illness, so there is no reason why we should get rid of religion if we assume that the same reasons apply.

[MaximiIian]

Saying that someone has a mental problem due to religious beliefs is as prejudiced and wrong as saying someone is likewise due to the lack thereof.

[pericles_plato]

So your saying that people who believe in religion are loonies?
I wouldn't say it's a problem more of a blessing. Religion actually helps the state of mind.
It's not even close to a mental problem. Theres good and bad people in ever religion and atheists.It's like telling someone who is praying for a good grade and they get one and saying that is luck go see a therapist. That is kinda what it is said. It helps more than it hurts.

[Cluny the Scourge]

However, such experiences are certainly not required to indicate psychotic mental illness. Irrational thoughts that cannot be displaced by rational argument are also indicators. Now let us assume that religious belief is irrational and not suseptible to rational argument. This still does not indicate psychosis, because for such beliefs to be psychotic they would have to A) cause significant alarm or distress or B) significantly reduce a person's ability to function in one or more important areas of their lives. Religious beliefs typically cannot be characterised by either criterion. What is more, such beliefs would have to not be culturally sanctioned, and since religious beliefs almost always are, they cannot be considered psychotic.

What this paragraph amounts to is a suggestion that it's okay for someone to be insane as long as it doesn't worry them (A), make it harder for them to get by in life (B), or worry a sufficiently large majority of the people around them (cultural-sanction).

You are not actually denying that the subject in question in this situation is, in fact, insane.

[Roman Knight]

An analogy is different from an insult. I've heard Jesus likened to a magnifying glass, but that doesn't that he's stupidly shaped, easily breakable and gets used by detectives.

[Exarch]

i remember reading somewhere that ppl who dream that god says something to them is really, psychologically, the influence of their father in their subconscious making itself heard.

[Bovril]

What this paragraph amounts to is a suggestion that it's okay for someone to be insane as long as it doesn't worry them (A), make it harder for them to get by in life (B), or worry a sufficiently large majority of the people around them (cultural-sanction).

You are not actually denying that the subject in question in this situation is, in fact, insane.

Since I do not think the term insane is useful, I would deny that the 'subject in question' is insane. Mental illness, according to a cognitive behavioural analysis (which is prevelant in modern psychiatry in the west) manifests as either mental suffering (cognitive) or reduced funtional abilities (behavioural) (this is of course simplified). If neither of these are manifested, there can be no mental illness. If it is social norms or input that are causing the mental suffering or reduced functionaliy, then this is a socio-cultural, not an individual, problem.
Unfortunately both psychiatrists (as indicated by, for example, some of the diagnoses in DSM-IV) and the general public occasionally take a view more typical of 19th century thought, where mental illness is seen as essentially consisting of behavioural deviancy.
It should be noted that personality disorders are not mental illnesses, and therefore do not need to meet the same criteria.

Why do you think the term insane is a useful one?

[boofhead]

I would have thought a 'psychiatric problem' would depend upon how much certain thoughts or behaviours deviate from the social norm, like on a bell curve. In which case 'religious' people, who make up easily the vast majority of the world, would be the norm, and non-believers in deity would be relegated as the 'psychiatric cases'. Religion is the normal human experience. Look at human history - every society and culture that has ever existed has had religious beliefs - modern day atheists are most certainly the nutters here, if anyone is.

(Note: I don't think religious people or non-religious people are 'psychiatric cases').

[Chaigidel]

but there is proof, in droves in volumes, just because your not perceptive enough to discern them , do not regard those that can with disdain, for your failures.

[Ummon]

That debate wouldn't go differently, I suspect.

[chriscase]

That debate wouldn't go differently, I suspect.

I dunno. This argument seems scoped just fine. If we broaden it, I suspect it will become rather amorphous. Maybe that should go in another thread. Also, I think we would need a primer on your sources regarding genius and mental illness.