God talking to people.

[ceo_esq]

I am sure no one would suggest that a skeptic or an atheist is somehow less prone to mental illness than the fundamentalist but there are large numbers of people who at the outset of mental illness recognize it as such and seek help. Not all, of course but many.

First, I don't know whether the number of people who recognize mental illness at the outset (which I had always believed could be challenging even for a trained psychiatrist) is statistically large or small compared to the overall number of people who develop such illnesses. If you do know, kindly direct me to your sources. I was under the impression that the nature of mental illness is such that it is not only tricky to self-diagnose, but also difficult to persuade a person in need of treatment to seek it.

Second, your unspoken implication here seems to be that the allegedly large number of people who not only accurately self-diagnose a mental disorder but take the initiative to seek treatement are proportionately more likely to be skeptic or atheist than, say, fundamentalist. Here again, an evidentiary source or two would be nice.

It is no accident that the Bible is so often the inspiration of so many violent crimes by mentally ill people. What are we to expect of one who begins hearing voices and believing it is God when they have been indoctrinated since birth that a powerful mystical being controls the Universe, interacts with man and often speaks to men and women directly, sometimes making demands that appear on the surface to contradict his teachings as in the testing of Abraham?

When people hear the ‘voice’ of ‘God’ and have been told all of their life that this is ‘normal’ and that they should ‘obey God’s word’ and then they set about slaughtering others unquestioningly based on this premise, how can anyone seriously factor out the role of ignorance and superstition in these types of cases?

My amateur judgment is that different persons suffering from a mental disorder manifested by an irresistible urge to do something harmful are likely to experience such manifestations in a subjectively different way. The mind of a fundamentalist may experience such urges in the form of a deific decree. The diseased mind of another person may persuade the subject that he is being directed by extraterrestrials or by his neighbor's dog, or that the CIA is broadcasting mind control signals into his head (regardless of whether the same individual, when of sound mind, would have believed such things were possible). It seems unlikely to me that the degree to which the impulses caused by the illness are subjectively irresistible will depend in any way upon whether the subject is a person is a fundamentalist or an atheist.

What I think you are ignoring here is the likelihood that that scapegoating the Bible (or extraterrestrials, or the neighbor's dog, or the CIA) as the "inspiration" for violent crimes by psychotic individuals is misguided. I submit that such crimes are essentially due to the illness, although the form they take may be colored by the subjective beliefs, associations and experiences of the ill person. Religion is a red herring - a subjective connection furnished by the subject's diseased mind in order to cognitively deal with what modern medical science tells us is in any event an overwhelming impulse (against which a psychotic's atheism, or any other belief he holds, could hardly hope to defend).

It is not that I am consciously factoring out the role of religion or superstition in such cases; rather, my (admittedly limited) familiarity with the pathology of psychosis provides no substantial basis for me to factor in such things - yet. But perhaps another poster can help us out here, so let's turn to Kopji's post.

Originally posted by Kopji
Hi,
I'm sorry, to claim that this incident has nothing to do with religion is delusional.

From the day we enter school we are taught that the greatest people hear voices, see visions, offer their children as human sacrifice... willingly die horrible deaths for a blood soaked history of belief in God.

And so why is schizophrenia so misunderstood when it is painfully simple? Because to acknowledge that seeing or hearing things that are not there is a mental illness undermines the faith of billions of people. "So let them die."

Since your post commences with what purports to be a psychiatric diagnosis, perhaps you can assist us in your next post by providing some of the psychiatric evidence this thread is crying out for. Your assertions about the link between religious belief and the incidence of antisocial behavior attributable to irresistible urges originating in a disease or defect of the brain seem tenuous at best, and at any rate wholly unsubstantiated in this discussion. Please forgive my skepticism.

Originally posted by Kopji
This is the indictment leveled at religion.

Indictment dismissed for insufficiency, counselor, with leave to file an amended indictment granted.

 

[Blue Monk]

First, I don't know whether the number of people who recognize mental illness at the outset (which I had always believed could be challenging even for a trained psychiatrist) is statistically large or small compared to the overall number of people who develop such illnesses. If you do know, kindly direct me to your sources. I was under the impression that the nature of mental illness is such that it is not only tricky to self-diagnose, but also difficult to persuade a person in need of treatment to seek it.

Second, your unspoken implication here seems to be that the allegedly large number of people who not only accurately self-diagnose a mental disorder but take the initiative to seek treatement are proportionately more likely to be skeptic or atheist than, say, fundamentalist. Here again, an evidentiary source or two would be nice.

Good post with many good points but I would like to make a couple of comments.

True, you are correct in that I have no statistical source I can refer you to that large numbers voluntarily seek mental health assistance though I still feel that this is a very safe and logical assumption. I know that State commitment and court-ordered assistance is not the only method available. The yellow pages are full of psychiatrists that I doubt depend solely on the State to supply patients and cities and counties often provide free or low-cost metal health assistance. Here in Austin we have, in addition to other clinics, at least one ‘walk-in’ facility. I think it is safe to assume that their clientele would be considered voluntary or self-motivated, however you choose to phrase it.

One must also consider that self-diagnosis is a far-cry from someone simply suspecting that all is not right and seeking help. Even if I were to learn that no one ever seeks help on their own and only do so when encouraged by others, that would not alter my opinion concerning the adverse effect that religious superstition has on these cases.

If someone approaches a group around the office water-cooler and casually remarks, “last night God spoke to me,” I think most people understand that this is not going to have the same impact as if the same person said, “last night my lawn-mower spoke to me.” Why? Because this is a widely held belief. Even if the listener doesn’t believe God spoke to anyone they are still not as likely as to suspect mental illness. As an atheist I would scarcely give it a second thought as I have heard people say this sort of thing all my life. But if you substitute a “file-cabinet” or “dog” in place of this magical omnipotent being, well that would just be crazy.

The rest of your post I agreed with but I never intended to imply that a person’s belief was a factor in the cause of a disorder and I did clearly state that I believe an atheist or skeptic is every bit as prone to mental illness as the devout.

However, in a Society where a person’s delusional state may be indistinguishable from the superstitious norm it seems illogical to me to not consider that a significant factor.

 

[Kopji]

ceo_esq
Thanks for the reply. I will try to answer to your comments.

The use of 'schizophrenic' was not intended as a specific diagnosis, but merely an example, considering that it is understood as having a cluster of similar characteristics, and is estimated over 60 million people suffer from it.

An earlier post strongly questioned if this topic belonged in religion, and asked that it be moved. The "challenge" that it does belong here could derived from many sources, but an excellent recent field of research is termed 'neurotheology':

March 10, 2004
In Neurons We Trust?
The Economist reported last week about a group of researchers who are exploring the neurobiology of religious experiences.
Until recently, religion and spirituality were deemed as 'cultural, a product of social conditioning, and not biological'. Religious beliefs and spirituality was the 'playing field' for theologists and philosophers, not biologists and scientists. Many scientists were skeptical and unwilling to consider the spiritual as science.
Building on the pioneering work of Michael Persinger, researchers are suggesting that "religion is a property of the brain, only the brain and has little to do with what's out there." Those who believe in neurotheology are trying to disprove the existence of God <span style="background-color: #ffff99">say they are holding up a mirror to society about the destructive power of religion. They say that religious wars, fanaticism and intolerance spring from dogmatic beliefs that particular gods and faiths are unique, rather than facets of universal brain chemistry.
"It's irrational and dangerous when you see how religiosity affects us," </span> said Matthew Alper, author of "The God Part of the Brain," a book about the neuroscience of belief. "During times of prosperity, we are contented. During times of depression, we go to war. When there isn't enough food to go around, we break into our spiritual tribes and use our gods as justification to kill one another."
http://www.corante.com/brainwaves/archives/002344.html

So there seems to be a solid reason that this crime is at least worth looking at from a religious point of view, and not 'shooed' off to another forum.

The other part of my earlier comment was not trying to imply that religion was a form of mental illness, but mental illness was 'tolerated' to promote the purposes of belief. A casual internet search bore this observation out. A couple samples of the two mindsets will hopefully suffice.

This first one is typical of a non religious pamphlet for treatment of schizophrenia, a common form of "mental illness". This is from Canada, I doubt a pamphlet like this would be produced in the US but I could be wrong:

Thought disorder is the most profound change, since it prevents clear thinking and rational response. Thoughts may be slow to form, or come extra fast, or not at all. The person may jump from topic to topic, seem confused, or have difficulty making simple decisions.Thinking may be coloured by delusions – false beliefs that have no logical basis. Some people also feel they are being persecuted – convinced they are being spied on or plotted against. <span style="background-color: #ffff99">They may have grandiose delusions or think they are all-powerful, capable of anything, and invulnerable to danger. They may also have a strong religious drive, or believe they have a personal mission to right the wrongs of the world.</span>
Non Religious Perspective (PDF)

This next one is more typical of a variety of religious points of view:

Spiritual support involves the degree to which a person experiences a connection to a higher power (i.e., God or other transcendent force) that is actively supporting, protecting, guiding, teaching, helping, and healing. For many people, having a relationship with a higher power is the foundation of their psychological well-being. Some researchers have suggested that the subjective experience of spiritual support may form the core of the spirituality-health connection (Mackenzie et al., 2000). The recent landmark publication Handbook of Religion and Health reviewed 1600 studies, including hundreds on mental health. One chapter,"Schizophrenia and Other Psychoses," summarizes research which indicates that <span style="background-color: #ffff99">persons with mental disorders utilize their spiritual resources to improve functioning, reduce isolation, and facilitate healing.</span>
The mental health professions have a long history of ignoring and pathologizing religion (Lukoff et al., 1992). For instance, Albert Ellis asserts, "The less religious [patients] are, the more emotionally healthy they will tend to be" (Ellis, 1980, p. 637). But the data show otherwise:<span style="background-color: #ffff99">religion is overwhelmingly associated with positive mental health.</span> (o)

And:

Surveys assessing the incidence of mystical experience in the general population indicate that it has been rising. during the past few decades. Now more than half the population polled answered yes to the Gallup Poll question:
Have you ever been aware of, or influenced by, a presence or a power — whether you call it God or not — which is different from your everyday self?
1973: 27%
1986: 42%
1990: 54%
(Gallup [1], [2])
<span style="background-color: #ffff99">Given that most of the adult population report such experiences, they are clearly normal rather than pathological phenomena. A recent survey found that most clinicians do not currently view mystical experiences as pathological.</span>
[3]. To some degree this reflects a change, partly attributable to Abraham Maslow, Ph.D., who was a founder of humanistic psychology in the 1960s, and then went on to found transpersonal psychology. He described the mystical experience as an aspect of everyday psychological functioning:
It is very likely, indeed almost certain, that these older reports [of mystical experiences], phrased in terms of supernatural revelation, were, in fact, perfectly natural, human peak experiences of the kind that can easily be examined today. (Abraham Maslow Religions, Values, and Peak Experiences p. 20)
Yet historically, mental health theory and diagnostic classification systems have tended to either ignore or pathologize such intense religious and spiritual experiences...

...Freud reduced the "oceanic experience" of mystics to "infantile helplessness" and a "regression to primary narcissism" in Civilization and Its Discontents.
In contrast to Freud, other theorists have viewed mystical experiences as a sign of health and a powerful agent of transformation, including C.G. Jung, (see Psychology and Religion) and Evelyn Underhill (see Mysticism: The Nature and Development of Spiritual Consciousness).
In addition, studies have found that people reporting mystical experiences scored lower on psychopathology scales and higher on measures of psychological well-being than controls. (see The Psychology of Religion: An Empirical Approach by Ralph W. Hood, Editor).
Many contemporary religious groups, such as the followers of the Guru Maharaji, cultivate mystical experiences,
Mystical experiences, analogous to an acute circumscribed hallucinatory episode, were found to be a central factor in the conversion of some of the adherents to the Divine Light Mission.[3], p. 281)
These events typically lasted one to three hours. Such behavior and states of mind appear psychotic, but they take place in a cultural context which promotes and guides such experiences. Similarly Ram Dass, a former psychologist turned spiritual teacher, describes individuals in a "god-intoxicated" state undergoing a training program for mystical experience under the close supervision of a master.

Associated Clinical Problems
Case studies document instances where mystical experiences are disruptive and distressing. This is one type of spiritual problem that therapists see regularly. In a survey, psychologists reported that 4.5% of their clients over the past 12 months brought a mystical experience into therapy (4).
Mystical experiences can be overwhelming for individuals who don'talready have a strong sense of self. They can become frightened and confused by the sudden influx of spiritual consciousness. Roberto Assagioli, MD, known for being the founder of psychosynthesis, described this clinical problem:
<span style="background-color: #ffff99">The personality is unable to rightly assimilate the inflow of light and energy. This happens, for instance, when the intellect is not well coordinated and developed when the emotions and the imagination are uncontrolled when the nervous system is too sensitive, or when the inrush of spiritual energy is overwhelming in its suddenness and intensity.</span>
(Self-realization and psychological disturbances in Spiritual Emergency: When Personal Transformation Becomes a Crisis by Stanislav Grof and Christina Grof, pp. 34-5)
However, there are also several specific similarities between self-reported descriptions of mystical and psychotic experiences.
(o)

Note above, even though some episodes were described as possibly psychotic, they were blamed on the person and not the religion. (Trying not to single out Christians here).

My somewhat blunt accusation seems well supported, for religion there really is no such thing as "mental illness"; if it is a problem it is helped by religion.

My personal perspective is that while this may be true sometimes, it is plainly at the expense of a few who for whom religion is toxic.

Are there any religious people out there who might accept that faith and belief are sometimes toxic to people? I would like to see even one single post.

Thanks & sorry for the long post.

 

[c4ts]

Of course faith can be toxic for certain people. Just look at the "God hates fags" guy.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

Sorry for derailing the thread, but committing 'hosiery?' They were having 'socks?'

 

[triadboy]

Now that I think of it, this case has little or nothing to do with religion in any meaningful sense. What's a thread about it doing in the R&P forum?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...e=9&u=/ap/20040331/ap_on_re_us/children_slain

...Deanna Laney had delusions she and Andrea Yates, who drowned her children in 2001, were chosen by God to be witnesses after the world ends.

She thought she would be one of the two witnesses described in the book of Revelations

Laney had delusions in which she would read everyday events or objects as messages from God. When her baby had abnormal bowel movements, for example, she thought it was a message from God that she was not properly "digesting" God's word, Dietz said.

"To interpret what a baby leaves in his diaper reflects a mentally ill person," Dietz said.

Interpreting diaper droppings....interpreting the bible.....hmmmm....sounds the same to me.

 

[Blue Monk]

Of course faith can be toxic for certain people. Just look at the "God hates fags" guy.

I'd rather not, hehe.

 

[c4ts]

Faith is also toxic for politics.

 

[frisian]

Faith is also toxic for politics.

How so?

Absolutely?

 

[c4ts]

Becuase you can use religion to justify anything, including crimes against humanity.

 

[frisian]

Becuase you can use religion to justify anything, including crimes against humanity.

Well one could, and some have. How does that possibility make such toxic?

 

[Some Friggin Guy]

"Last night the Lord came to me and spoke to me...













In French.

So I did not understand a word he said." - Steve Martin.

 

[triadboy]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Southwest/04/01/children.slain.ap/index.html

A sobbing Laney recounted in a videotape played at her capital murder trial Wednesday how she smashed her sons' skulls with rocks to prove her faith to God.

Twisted, eh?

 

[Silicon]

Well one could, and some have. How does that possibility make such toxic?

Well the problem is that people start making policy based on belief systems that are beyond reproach.

After all, do you want to argue against the will of God? You'll be labled a god-hater!


That's why religion is toxic to government, because it has the effect of squelching debate. And that's actually the INTENDED effect on the part of the leaders who invoke God.

It's argument by authority, and there's no higher authority, PLUS He'll never come down and straighten you out if you quote Him wrong! The perfect alibi!

 

[local weather]

Wouldn't it be even better...

if the news stations covering this story would report something like:

"It is believed that God told the woman to kill her children. For the second time in recent memory, the Christian diety has made his presence known in a decidedly negative way. It is difficult to percieve how God is to continue to portray himself as merciful when he is involved in episodes like this."

Unfortunately, no such luck.

 

[frisian]

Well the problem is that people start making policy based on belief systems that are beyond reproach.

After all, do you want to argue against the will of God? You'll be labled a god-hater!


That's why religion is toxic to government, because it has the effect of squelching debate. And that's actually the INTENDED effect on the part of the leaders who invoke God.

It's argument by authority, and there's no higher authority, PLUS He'll never come down and straighten you out if you quote Him wrong! The perfect alibi!

Hmmm, in a "free" society it still shouldn't squelch debate. Every government official, no matter their "belief" system, is biased. Whomever has the power determines, in that respect separation of powers is key, and not just in principle but in actuality.

 

[Silicon]

But frisan,

How do you seperate the powers between the fundamentalist christians in the judiciary from the ones in the legislature and the one in the white house. Especially since the first ones are appointed by the other two. We're a school-prayer litmus test away from having a taliban in this country.

Maybe you didn't hear when George Herbert Walker Bush said that he didn't believe that atheists should even be considered citizens.


More to the point, know any nationally-serving atheists in elective office?


We'll have a black lesbian Jewish president in this country before we have an atheist president.

 

[Jas]

Assuming that it was mental illness, I feel really bad for her. My mom used to work as a psychiatric nurse, and in the one hospital she worked at, one of the patients murdered his mother because, during a psychotic episode, he thought that she was the antichrist. Now he's in the hospital for the rest of his life. He's on meds, and has responded well to them, and realizes what he did. And now, for the rest of his life, he has to live with the fact that he murdered his own mother. I can't think of anything harder to deal with than that.

That being said, the other thing my mother said about working in the psychiatric hospital, was that as soon as they pick up a Bible, watch out. In her experience, when people with a mental illness find religion, it's pretty scary. She used to say that if she had a nickel for every time she's met Jesus....

 

[triadboy]

That being said, the other thing my mother said about working in the psychiatric hospital, was that as soon as they pick up a Bible, watch out.

They probably actually read it too!

 

[Gregor]

I can't disagree that people are mentally ill - first, and use religion as some justification for their actions - second. However, many religions have three components that make them an especially dangerous framework through which to justify insane conduct:

1. These religions are pervasive, with books about them, global ministries, and an air of legitimacy in the public. Talking appliances share none of these attributes.

2. The entity compelling action is the Tri-O God. With God on your side, you cannot go wrong. And society tolerates (if not accepts) the concept that God talks to people. I don't know that if you take the same nutter and have him hear a voice from his toaster, he'd resist the urge to kill, but if he thinks it's the voice of God he'd follow it. However, our society's acceptance that an interactive God exists might foster these delusions.

3. Religion promises you reward for following God's commands. The best thing that a talking toaster can promise you is crackin' toast, (grommit).

Religion seems like it could, possibly, create a feedback loop as a result of these attributes. Perhaps that loop increases the likelihood of conduct occurring that we consider insane.