Are Believers Delusional?

[Treasure Hunter]

… So, currently, believers are not seen as delusional.

But should they?

I think that they should when their beliefs lead to a sense of entitlement…

Hypothetical scenario: You are singled-out and bombarded by every major news outlet with misinformation and disinformation. You voice a complaint to someone in power over the situation. They respond with the following, “You are not entitled to access reality.”

Do you agree or disagree with their claim? If you disagree, are you not holding a belief which leads to a sense of entitlement?

 

[Heyo]

I don't think that's what most people mean by being "called" (by God) to do something like run for office. What they mean is that they feel an internal conviction to do it, and they interpret that as being a divine spiritual calling. It's not much different than someone feeling morally compelled to run, or even politically compelled to run.

We don't need to presume every religious person is seeing ghosts or hearing messages. Most are just people the same as anyone else that carry and express themselves in a more spiritual way. They are no more delusional than any of the rest of us are.

I had a special case in mind where the candidate described auditory hallucinations in a way that was congruent with schizophrenia.

 

[sun rise]

People are using the word "delusion" not in the clinical sense . That very long and detailed NIH page has this:

Religious delusions​

The religious nature of the delusion is seen as a disorder of content dependent on the patient’s social background, interests and peer group. The form of the delusion is dictated by the nature of the illness. So religious delusions are not caused by excessive religious belief, nor by the wrongdoing which the patient attributes as cause, but they simply accentuate that when a person becomes mentally ill his delusions reflect, in their content, his predominant interests and concerns. Although common, they formed a higher proportion in the nineteenth century than in the twentieth century and are still prevalent in developing countries.

 

[LuisDantas]

via What Are Delusions?
The DSM also makes an exception for religiously held beliefs.

So, currently, believers are not seen as delusional.

But should they?

I think that they should when their beliefs lead to a sense of entitlement. There are enough examples, historical and present, that fall under that category.
"We shall conquer that land because it was given to us by our god."
"We deserve tax exemption because we believe in an invisible, higher being."
"I deserve special respect because of my irrational beliefs." (Blasphemy laws)
"You should vote for me, because I got called by my god to run for office."

Technically, it wouldn't even touch on the religious beliefs, only on the resulting entitlement, but even that seems to be a taboo.

What do you think, is someone who thinks that they are entitled to special treatment because of their beliefs, delusional?

We know for certain that many believers are indeed delusional to some extent. It may be somewhat (but not very) difficult to delimit quite how, where and who, but we do know that they are.

 

[PureX]

I had a special case in mind where the candidate described auditory hallucinations in a way that was congruent with schizophrenia.

I stand enlightened.

 

[Ella S.]

I don't think entitlement has much to do with delusion, except maybe delusions of grandiosity, but I don't think entitlement alone is sufficient enough to make that diagnosis.

People can be irrational and mistaken. Irrationality isn't a mental illness. It's the default way our brains work. It takes study and practice to become more rational by overcoming our irrational instincts. It takes discipline to overrule our heuristic mind, and often it can take careful focus to scrutinize something rationally that we otherwise wouldn't. Rationality is a skill, not something innate.

I do think that many of the beliefs that I do not personally hold are mistaken. I think that's common. It could just as easily be the case that I'm mistaken, too, and one or more religions are an accurate reflection of the external world. For all I know, Jesus really was the son of God or Mohammad really was a prophet. Maybe I just haven't found or recognized the right denomination, the right way to pray, etc. Actually, this concern is why I'm on the forum at all. I want to expand my horizons in the possibility that I'm wrong in my position.

So, under the assumption that believers are actually wrong, that can usually be explained by their lack of education, really. Given the fact that education is notorious for really only being available to wealthier people (and, yes, I'm including middle-class people from many first-world nations here) I think it's actually maybe a little classist to assume that believers should know better. Or that they're less intelligent or less sane simply because they hold beliefs that are likely to be incorrect.

For something to be a delusion, it has to be held with conviction in spite of good evidence and argument to the contrary, but this is more than mere stubbornness. When someone is delusional, it's not that they refuse to argue in good faith or that they are willfully ignorant. It's not that they're so misinformed that they can't recognize good evidence or good argumentation that should convince them, or that they believe so much misinformation that new evidence is easy to dismiss as an outlier or something. It's not inconceivable that someone could rationally come to the conclusion that scientists fabricate evidence for evolution in order to lead Creationists away from God; it depends on the information they have available to them and how they were raised.

Delusions are very different. Firstly, they come from magical thinking, not social reinforcement, theology, authority, philosophy, etc. While most religious beliefs probably originate in magical thinking, the beliefs themselves are rationalized in a broader philosophical and cultural context. Buying into the rationalizations for a belief that comes from magical thinking is not, in itself, an example of magical thinking. And some degree of magical thinking is rather normal; it's usually not severe enough to cause significant disorder in someone's life alone, so it doesn't rise to the level of pathology. Even if someone believes in one form of religious magical thinking, which I admit is common, they are not normally adopting that form of magical thinking from a place of irrationality. They adapt it because they have a reason to, even if it's a poor reason. Delusions, by contrast, are unreasonable and emerge somewhat spontaneously.

Furthermore, a delusion is more than just a belief formed by severe magical thinking. It also has to meet two other, rather important criteria. Firstly, the belief itself has to cause significant disorder in their life. Most believers can hold down a job and maintain their relationships, so their functioning isn't impaired enough by their beliefs for them to be unhealthy. This more or less discounts the idea that they're delusional on its own.

Secondly, a delusion has to be held with absolute conviction. Believe it or not, I'm pretty sure the majority of religious believers don't really come close to this. Believers with the most conviction simply tend to be more vocal. Your average religious person has a set of beliefs that was instilled in them by their parents and/or community when they were young and has simply never had them seriously challenged. The ones who are challenged in the right way might deconvert or convert to another religion. That's pretty far from delusion. In fact, many religious believers will find themselves changing their position or interpretation of doctrine or dogma over their lives, just on their own. Again, that's a far cry from the rigidity you would expect from a delusion.

I don't think the comparison is remotely fair, to be honest.

 

[Heyo]

I don't think entitlement has much to do with delusion, except maybe delusions of grandiosity, but I don't think entitlement alone is sufficient enough to make that diagnosis.

People can be irrational and mistaken. Irrationality isn't a mental illness. It's the default way our brains work. It takes study and practice to become more rational by overcoming our irrational instincts. It takes discipline to overrule our heuristic mind, and often it can take careful focus to scrutinize something rationally that we otherwise wouldn't. Rationality is a skill, not something innate.

I do think that many of the beliefs that I do not personally hold are mistaken. I think that's common. It could just as easily be the case that I'm mistaken, too, and one or more religions are an accurate reflection of the external world. For all I know, Jesus really was the son of God or Mohammad really was a prophet. Maybe I just haven't found or recognized the right denomination, the right way to pray, etc. Actually, this concern is why I'm on the forum at all. I want to expand my horizons in the possibility that I'm wrong in my position.

So, under the assumption that believers are actually wrong, that can usually be explained by their lack of education, really. Given the fact that education is notorious for really only being available to wealthier people (and, yes, I'm including middle-class people from many first-world nations here) I think it's actually maybe a little classist to assume that believers should know better. Or that they're less intelligent or less sane simply because they hold beliefs that are likely to be incorrect.

For something to be a delusion, it has to be held with conviction in spite of good evidence and argument to the contrary, but this is more than mere stubbornness. When someone is delusional, it's not that they refuse to argue in good faith or that they are willfully ignorant. It's not that they're so misinformed that they can't recognize good evidence or good argumentation that should convince them, or that they believe so much misinformation that new evidence is easy to dismiss as an outlier or something. It's not inconceivable that someone could rationally come to the conclusion that scientists fabricate evidence for evolution in order to lead Creationists away from God; it depends on the information they have available to them and how they were raised.

Delusions are very different. Firstly, they come from magical thinking, not social reinforcement, theology, authority, philosophy, etc. While most religious beliefs probably originate in magical thinking, the beliefs themselves are rationalized in a broader philosophical and cultural context. Buying into the rationalizations for a belief that comes from magical thinking is not, in itself, an example of magical thinking. And some degree of magical thinking is rather normal; it's usually not severe enough to cause significant disorder in someone's life alone, so it doesn't rise to the level of pathology. Even if someone believes in one form of religious magical thinking, which I admit is common, they are not normally adopting that form of magical thinking from a place of irrationality. They adapt it because they have a reason to, even if it's a poor reason. Delusions, by contrast, are unreasonable and emerge somewhat spontaneously.

Furthermore, a delusion is more than just a belief formed by severe magical thinking. It also has to meet two other, rather important criteria. Firstly, the belief itself has to cause significant disorder in their life. Most believers can hold down a job and maintain their relationships, so their functioning isn't impaired enough by their beliefs for them to be unhealthy. This more or less discounts the idea that they're delusional on its own.

Secondly, a delusion has to be held with absolute conviction. Believe it or not, I'm pretty sure the majority of religious believers don't really come close to this. Believers with the most conviction simply tend to be more vocal. Your average religious person has a set of beliefs that was instilled in them by their parents and/or community when they were young and has simply never had them seriously challenged. The ones who are challenged in the right way might deconvert or convert to another religion. That's pretty far from delusion. In fact, many religious believers will find themselves changing their position or interpretation of doctrine or dogma over their lives, just on their own. Again, that's a far cry from the rigidity you would expect from a delusion.

I don't think the comparison is remotely fair, to be honest.

I'm not sure, but I think we have a misunderstanding. You say that believers can't be delusional because most of them don't exhibit trait X, while I was asking if believers, who exhibit trait X, can be called delusional.

 

[MonkeyFire]

If it applies to everyone it is fair. However, a belief doesn’t equate to a living believer.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

via What Are Delusions?
The DSM also makes an exception for religiously held beliefs.

So, currently, believers are not seen as delusional.

But should they?

I think that they should when their beliefs lead to a sense of entitlement. There are enough examples, historical and present, that fall under that category.
"We shall conquer that land because it was given to us by our god."
"We deserve tax exemption because we believe in an invisible, higher being."
"I deserve special respect because of my irrational beliefs." (Blasphemy laws)
"You should vote for me, because I got called by my god to run for office."

Technically, it wouldn't even touch on the religious beliefs, only on the resulting entitlement, but even that seems to be a taboo.

What do you think, is someone who thinks that they are entitled to special treatment because of their beliefs, delusional?

Rather than delusional, I would suggest that believers are those who are incapable, for whatever reason, of actually perceiving the conflicting evidence. Or, more egregiously, perceiving it, and deciding to ignore it.

 

[Augustus]

Rather than delusional, I would suggest that believers are those who are incapable, for whatever reason, of actually perceiving the conflicting evidence. Or, more egregiously, perceiving it, and deciding to ignore it.

In other words, they are normal humans like the rest of us

 

[Rational Agnostic]

We humans don't deal with uncertainty well, ... understandably. As we cannot control what we cannot anticipate. And we are a species given to fantasy and delusion easily. We will often accept the pretense of knowing in leu of actual knowing just to feel in control.

And in some ways this is good for us as it gives us the courage to keep moving and advancing in spite of our unknowing. But in some ways it can also be disastrous as we can so easily fool ourselves into taking actions that will be disastrous for us thinking that we "know" it won't be.

Belief is a double-edged sword.

Is it really good for us though? Why can we not keep moving and advancing and just learn to accept the fact that we can't know almost anything? I spent a lot of my life looking for certainty and trying to "know" things that I couldn't know and it was a complete waste, it's almost like an addiction, the more you try to reassure and convince yourself that everything is okay and everything you want to be certain of is known, the more you feel the need to reassure yourself, and the more uncomfortable you feel without performing these irrational rituals.

 

[Heyo]

Rather than delusional, I would suggest that believers are those who are incapable, for whatever reason, of actually perceiving the conflicting evidence. Or, more egregiously, perceiving it, and deciding to ignore it.

Isn't that the definition of delusional?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Can we not pathologize like this? OCD does not have rituals, per say, it has compulsions, and a lot of the times the compulsions are not even visible or behavioral, but purely invasive thoughts. When it is behavioral it's not chosen patterns it's usually unbidden stims and ticks, more akin to Autistic and Tourettes folk. People who obsessively clean (Ala Monk or Matchstick Men) are not OCD. That is just a Hollywood spin on entirely different problems with anxieties and anxiety triggers. Does that mean that people with OCD don't also do this, no of course not. But it's because OCD very often comes with anxiety and trying to find and avoid triggers. That anxiety is addressed different and separately than OCD.

This, to me, is the equivalent of telling someone who has a strict daily fitness routine they're being OCD. OCD is not about choices.

And as far as religious people who have anxiety using maladaptive practices to avoid anxiety triggers, this can be done with literally anything. Video games, reading, philosophizing on the internet, doomscrolling, anything which brings a steady supply of dopamine and avoids percieved triggers.

If someone were to say that all or most religious people are brushing up with clinical pathology I'd tell them to please stop watering down clinical pathology which makes it harder for people actually suffering from OCD and anxiety to be understood and aided.

I wasn't pathologizing--notice I made the disclaimer that I am not a mental health professional and that I was hypothesizing, not pathologizing or making any definitive claim on reality. Ultimately, all mental health disorders are based on subjective, humanmade criteria anyway, and diagnoses are made from subjective assessments and hypothesizing is the first place to start. It's not the rituals in and of themselves that make religious activity similar to OCD in my opinion, it's the reason for the rituals, and the reason is the need for absolute certainty and the fear of uncertainty. But the only way to truly get over this fear is to desensitize oneself to it--my position is that there is almost nothing that we can truly know, and asserting that we can know things with certainty that we demonstrably cannot, is a form of delusion, and hence mental illness. It also leads to a lot of suffering and mental anguish and I know this from personal experience.

 

[F1fan]

via What Are Delusions?
The DSM also makes an exception for religiously held beliefs.

So, currently, believers are not seen as delusional.

But should they?

I think that they should when their beliefs lead to a sense of entitlement. There are enough examples, historical and present, that fall under that category.
"We shall conquer that land because it was given to us by our god."
"We deserve tax exemption because we believe in an invisible, higher being."
"I deserve special respect because of my irrational beliefs." (Blasphemy laws)
"You should vote for me, because I got called by my god to run for office."

Technically, it wouldn't even touch on the religious beliefs, only on the resulting entitlement, but even that seems to be a taboo.

What do you think, is someone who thinks that they are entitled to special treatment because of their beliefs, delusional?

I'll bet that if congress passed a law that any citizen who is a Muslim won't have to pay taxes, there would be a massive move for most citizens to become Muslims. I don't think most believers do so after careful consideration of the concepts, there is a social drive to adopt beliefs of those around them, for the sake of social cohesion. That is a benefit to believe. It's also why so many believers in the status quo get upset with atheists, because we dare to not go with the flow.

I think there's a case to be made with delusion with religious extremists, They really seem to have problems adjusting to normal funtionality.

 

[The Hammer]

via What Are Delusions?
The DSM also makes an exception for religiously held beliefs.

So, currently, believers are not seen as delusional.

But should they?

I think that they should when their beliefs lead to a sense of entitlement. There are enough examples, historical and present, that fall under that category.
"We shall conquer that land because it was given to us by our god."
"We deserve tax exemption because we believe in an invisible, higher being."
"I deserve special respect because of my irrational beliefs." (Blasphemy laws)
"You should vote for me, because I got called by my god to run for office."

Technically, it wouldn't even touch on the religious beliefs, only on the resulting entitlement, but even that seems to be a taboo.

What do you think, is someone who thinks that they are entitled to special treatment because of their beliefs, delusional?

No believers are not delusional. Thanks

 

[Heyo]

No believers are not delusional. Thanks

That wasn't the question. The question was if believers who derive entitlement from their belief are delusional.

 

[The Hammer]

That wasn't the question.

Yes it was

The question was if believers who derive entitlement from their belief are delusional.

"Are Believers Delusional?'
From the title question

 

[The Hammer]

I think that they should when their beliefs lead to a sense of entitlement.

Your issue is with Pride not religion.

 

[Heyo]

Yes it was



"Are Believers Delusional?'
From the title question

Why is it that people are unable or unwilling to read beyond the title and the first paragraph?
(I blame TikTok and YouTube shorts.)

 

[Heyo]

Your issue is with Pride not religion.

Why does religion lead so often to pride?