Are Merely "Religious" Experiences of God Distinguishable from Psychosis?

[Sunstone]

Are merely "religious" experiences of god distinguishable from psychosis?

One winter, an out-of-work friend of mine became so depressed and lonely that (in the words of his psychiatrist) his "mind was forced to take a break from the reality of his suffering." Fortunately, he landed in the hospital where he got proper care, and his family then saw to it that he continued to receive care thereafter.

But following his psychotic break -- for weeks afterwards -- he felt God was telling him not to shave, and that he even felt compelled or forced to not shave.

Much later than that, he told me the episode might have given him both insight into such things as the biblical injunction not to eat shellfish, and also insight into how readily people will rationalize such injunctions in order to make them "sensible". That is, he wasn't entirely sure even then whether or not the injunction to avoid shaving was entirely a matter of psychosis -- or had something to do with God. It had felt that compelling to him.

"Religious" experiences are not something I know much about. They seem to me distinct from my main area of interest -- mystical experiences. For one thing, religious experiences always involve in some key way figures from your religious tradition -- or at least, a tradition you are familiar with. So, for instance, during a religious experience, you might see Jesus, Shiva, or some other such personage.

Again, religious experiences tend to involve only one or two perceptual fields, such as vision and hearing. You see Krishna, you hear the voice of Allah. Or they can -- as in my friend's case -- only involve some kind of compulsive and convincing thoughts that a specific God is telling you something.

But mystical experiences are different. Typically, mystical experiences involve all fields of perception. Your sight, hearing, touch, etc (along with any sensations you have of internal states, such as hunger) are all involved at once.

But the sine qua non of a mystical experience is a perception of oneness. All things within your perceptual fields are seen as possessing an underlying unity such that they become in some vital sense one.

It is possible that mystical experiences can involve personages from some specific religion, but that's a subject of hot debate among the scholars of mysticism. Some say that mystical experiences are only interpreted (after the fact) as having been of a Jesus or a Vishnu. That during the actual experience itself there is no merely religious content.

Against that contention, other scholars point to drug induced experiences during which religious images are frequently reported simultaneously with a sense or perception of oneness. And the debate goes on from there.

Having said all that, are there any grounds upon which we can reliably distinguish between religious experiences and psychotic hallucinations? If so, what are those grounds? How reliable do you suppose they are?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Are merely "religious" experiences of god distinguishable from psychosis?

One winter, an out-of-work friend of mine became so depressed and lonely that (in the words of his psychiatrist) his "mind was forced to take a break from the reality of his suffering." Fortunately, he landed in the hospital where he got proper care, and his family then saw to it that he continued to receive care thereafter.

But following his psychotic break -- for weeks afterwards -- he felt God was telling him not to shave, and that he even felt compelled or forced to not shave.

Much later than that, he told me the episode might have given him both insight into such things as the biblical injunction not to eat shellfish, and also insight into how readily people will rationalize such injunctions in order to make them "sensible". That is, he wasn't entirely sure even then whether or not the injunction to avoid shaving was entirely a matter of psychosis -- or had something to do with God. It had felt that compelling to him.

"Religious" experiences are not something I know much about. They seem to me distinct from my main area of interest -- mystical experiences. For one thing, religious experiences always involve in some key way figures from your religious tradition -- or at least, a tradition you are familiar with. So, for instance, during a religious experience, you might see Jesus, Shiva, or some other such personage.

Again, religious experiences tend to involve only one or two perceptual fields, such as vision and hearing. You see Krishna, you hear the voice of Allah. Or they can -- as in my friend's case -- only involve some kind of compulsive and convincing thoughts that a specific God is telling you something.

But mystical experiences are different. Typically, mystical experiences involve all fields of perception. Your sight, hearing, touch, etc (along with any sensations you have of internal states, such as hunger) are all involved at once.

But the sine qua non of a mystical experience is a perception of oneness. All things within your perceptual fields are seen as possessing an underlying unity such that they become in some vital sense one.

It is possible that mystical experiences can involve personages from some specific religion, but that's a subject of hot debate among the scholars of mysticism. Some say that mystical experiences are only interpreted (after the fact) as having been of a Jesus or a Vishnu. That during the actual experience itself there is no merely religious content.

Against that contention, other scholars point to drug induced experiences during which religious images are frequently reported simultaneously with a sense or perception of oneness. And the debate goes on from there.

Having said all that, are there any grounds upon which we can reliably distinguish between religious experiences and psychotic hallucinations? If so, what are those grounds? How reliable do you suppose they are?

They are both from the mind. The abstract related experiences like love etc are reactions and interpretations of senses attributed to an external or internal source. Take away culture and you notice similaries regardless the supernatural religion because we are all human.

The words psycosis and psychotic have negative connotations.

Id say religious experiences arent phycosis. Believers are in touch with reality. Their interpretations of their unexplained eurphic experience are from this life not another. Being religious doesnt mean that person is not in touch with reality. Their view of life is healthy just uncommon to those they are suprised to see not all experience.

As for hallucinations, because of their nature, if believers where hallucinating they wouldnt know it. Extend that more, we all think we know reality when reality exists apart from our senses. That "part" we are disconnected from people call god. Its true we dont know everything about reality. I see no negative reason to belittle those who feel they experienced it even though no believer (hindu, jewish, bahai, cant think of another) can or want to explain it. Christians try with jesus but then even his god no one saw his fsce and no one knows his name.

 

[Sunstone]

They are both from the mind.

Perhaps, but I don't think we can know for certain that mystical experiences are "only from the mind". That would seem to me to require a leap of faith. On the other hand, religious experiences depend on previously knowing the god you see and/or hear during them. That would indicate to me that they are of the mind.

Beyond that, mystical experiences do not involve conscious thought. That comes afterwards, not during the experiences. So in that way, they are not of the mind.

The words psycosis and psychotic have negative connotations.

It is human nature to ascribe positive or negative connotations to words. In most cases, the specific connotations depend entirely on the person who hears, reads, or uses the word. They are not properties of the word itself in most cases, such as in the case of "psychosis", which can be used as a medical term, as I did in the OP.

 

[stvdv]

30 jun 2018 stvdv 014 28

Are merely "religious" experiences of god distinguishable from psychosis?

You mean, if someone tells "I experienced this". That you are able to tell if it was psychosis or not. Or that the person himself can distinguish?

For one thing, religious experiences always involve in some key way figures from your religious tradition -- or at least, a tradition you are familiar with. So, for instance, during a religious experience, you might see Jesus, Shiva, or some other such personage.

You only get a vision of these if it is granted to you. Easy to prove this yourself. Meditate a few hours on a form. Should give a dream or vision. Try with "erotic dancing girls". You won't be able to get them out of your mind. That is enough proof to me. I did test this over 100 times. Not the "erotic dancing girls". The fun part is to try out yourself. I hear many people talk about it only. Just do the stuff. That is real proof and knowledge.

But following his psychotic break -- for weeks afterwards -- he felt God was telling him not to shave, and that he even felt compelled or forced to not shave.

There is a reason that they have the eight fold path or similar techniques. Purify your body, mind, emotions, discrimination, intellect. The duller you are the duller the experiences/discrimination. Most people waste precious energy having lots of sex. This energy is key to spiritual awakening.

Having said all that, are there any grounds upon which we can reliably distinguish between religious experiences and psychotic hallucinations? If so, what are those grounds? How reliable do you suppose they are?

Very reliable. But you need to purify yourself. Not taking shower only.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Perhaps, but I don't think we can know for certain that mystical experiences are "only from the mind". That would seem to me to require a leap of faith. On the other hand, religious experiences depend on previously knowing the god you see and/or hear during them. That would indicate to me that they are of the mind.

Beyond that, mystical experiences do not involve conscious thought. That comes afterwards, not during the experiences. So in that way, they are not of the mind.



It is human nature to ascribe positive or negative connotations to words. In most cases, the specific connotations depend entirely on the person who hears, reads, or uses the word. They are not properties of the word itself in most cases, such as in the case of "psychosis", which can be used as a medical term, as I did in the OP.

I read it all. All of our experiences are interpreted from the mind. Take meditation. A hindu and japanese buddhist meditate. The latter meditation practices are not indian related but influenced by japanese culture.

But both are human, have human senses, an healthy mind, and healthy brain. Say both see the color red and have this "Im connected" feeling. Hindus apply it to brahma. Nichiren Buddhist to the Gohonzon (Dharma). Yet, the physical sensations are the same.

If they where different, one person would need to be nonhuman. God experiences cant "be explained" for this reason. We dont know everything about the mind. In pseudo drugs the mind thinks drug A is real. Even produce healing symptoms. Like meditation its all from mental activity.

No one has explained any experience apart from already given knowledge. Same senes. Not everyone can explain the foreign ones. So god is the source.

It can be psychosis if god is not part of reality. Based on what I observed rather than just taking what people say as truth, I came to an conclusion they are in touch with reality. Their experience and explanation of reality varies by person, still exists just the same.

If its a hallucination no one would Know it. We live in the same reality so why would a nonbeliver thinks he knows more about the nature of gods more than believers as if we have the keys to the universe.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Great question.

I was a psychiatry intern for seven years so I've had a a significant amount of experience treating and assessing people with a psychiatric disorder. I was disappointed at how little neurobiology and indeed any scientific research could answer about the what made us function as people and particularly a spiritual dimension. For example if we were wanting to establish an association between the use of that Colorado weed you mentioned on another thread and schizophrenia you would need to examine very large numbers of people (10,000+) over many years.

An example of such a study was done by Andreason over a 15 year period. They looked at almost all the Swedish conscipts back in the early 70s, and asked them to complete confidential questionaires about how much cannabis they had smoked, then investigated rates of admission to psychiatric inpatient facilities over the next 13 years. The number of participants was over 45,000. Rates of development of schizophrenia amongst consripts that had smoked cannabis 50 + times were six times greater than the rates of those that had never smoked. The conscripts had an average age of 18 years so we're talking about the real stoners here. Once this cohort was standardised for other potential confounding factors such as pre existing mental illness, social deprivation and other substance use the rates of onset of schizophrenia dropped to 2 1/2 times the rate of the normal population. The study concluded there was definitely an association between use of cannabis and the onset of schizophrenia but then couldn't prove a causal link. For example someone with prodromal schizophrenia might be more likely to smoke cannabis to cope with the symptoms so it could be argued developing schizophrenia caused cannabis use.

Cannabis and schizophrenia. A longitudinal study of Swedish conscripts. - PubMed - NCBI

In regards those patients I personally treated with schizophrenia, it was very clear their psychosis and little to do with mysticism. The content of their hallucinations combined with their markedly reduced functional capacity gave it away. There were some with religious delusions who believed they were special or messianic in some way. Often their behaviour or thought processes were so disordered there was little doubt they were psychotic and not mystics.

 

[Sunstone]

Great question.

I was a psychiatry intern for seven years so I've had a a significant amount of experience treating and assessing people with a psychiatric disorder. I was disappointed at how little neurobiology and indeed any scientific research could answer about the what made us function as people and particularly a spiritual dimension. For example if we were wanting to establish an association between the use of that Colorado weed you mentioned on another thread and schizophrenia you would need to examine very large numbers of people (10,000+) over many years.

An example of such a study was done by Andreason over a 15 year period. They looked at almost all the Swedish conscipts back in the early 70s, and asked them to complete confidential questionaires about how much cannabis they had smoked, then investigated rates of admission to psychiatric inpatient facilities over the next 13 years. The number of participants was over 45,000. Rates of development of schizophrenia amongst consripts that had smoked cannabis 50 + times were six times greater than the rates of those that had never smoked. The conscripts had an average age of 18 years so we're talking about the real stoners here. Once this cohort was standardised for other potential confounding factors such as pre existing mental illness, social deprivation and other substance use the rates of onset of schizophrenia dropped to 2 1/2 times the rate of the normal population. The study concluded there was definitely an association between use of cannabis and the onset of schizophrenia but then couldn't prove a causal link. For example someone with prodromal schizophrenia might be more likely to smoke cannabis to cope with the symptoms so it could be argued developing schizophrenia caused cannabis use.

Cannabis and schizophrenia. A longitudinal study of Swedish conscripts. - PubMed - NCBI

In regards those patients I personally treated with schizophrenia, it was very clear their psychosis and little to do with mysticism. The content of their hallucinations combined with their markedly reduced functional capacity gave it away. There were some with religious delusions who believed they were special or messianic in some way. Often their behaviour or thought processes were so disordered there was little doubt they were psychotic and not mystics.

That's very helpful. Thank you! Could you elaborate on how you distinguished the patients from mystics?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Great question.

I was a psychiatry intern for seven years so I've had a a significant amount of experience treating and assessing people with a psychiatric disorder. I was disappointed at how little neurobiology and indeed any scientific research could answer about the what made us function as people and particularly a spiritual dimension. For example if we were wanting to establish an association between the use of that Colorado weed you mentioned on another thread and schizophrenia you would need to examine very large numbers of people (10,000+) over many years.

An example of such a study was done by Andreason over a 15 year period. They looked at almost all the Swedish conscipts back in the early 70s, and asked them to complete confidential questionaires about how much cannabis they had smoked, then investigated rates of admission to psychiatric inpatient facilities over the next 13 years. The number of participants was over 45,000. Rates of development of schizophrenia amongst consripts that had smoked cannabis 50 + times were six times greater than the rates of those that had never smoked. The conscripts had an average age of 18 years so we're talking about the real stoners here. Once this cohort was standardised for other potential confounding factors such as pre existing mental illness, social deprivation and other substance use the rates of onset of schizophrenia dropped to 2 1/2 times the rate of the normal population. The study concluded there was definitely an association between use of cannabis and the onset of schizophrenia but then couldn't prove a causal link. For example someone with prodromal schizophrenia might be more likely to smoke cannabis to cope with the symptoms so it could be argued developing schizophrenia caused cannabis use.

Cannabis and schizophrenia. A longitudinal study of Swedish conscripts. - PubMed - NCBI

In regards those patients I personally treated with schizophrenia, it was very clear their psychosis and little to do with mysticism. The content of their hallucinations combined with their markedly reduced functional capacity gave it away. There were some with religious delusions who believed they were special or messianic in some way. Often their behaviour or thought processes were so disordered there was little doubt they were psychotic and not mystics.

Nice observation (well, and study). Is there another psychiatric word one can use that mirrors closer related factors of mental health with mysticism? Im kinda on the othervend of the spectrum. Ive had hullucinations before (scared tbe ba-jesus out of me!) But never studied it.

 

[Dawnofhope]

That's very helpful. Thank you! Could you elaborate on how you distinguished the patients from mystics?

One of my most memorable patients was a 70 year old woman who thought she was Jesus. She believed she had some special mission to save the world. Being prepared to accept that Jesus may return in the form of an elderly woman, her through processes were often incoherent. She had a formal thought disorder called loosening of associations where her ideas were not well organised and poorly connected.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/loosening-of-associations

http://www.gpnotebook.co.uk/simplepage.cfm?ID=-93650906

I think someone who is a genuine mystic would readily be able to grasp practical and metaphysical concepts and to be able to both explain them and put them into practice.

This woman's decision making was poor. Her life was chaotic. Sadly there was little special about her and having had traumatic experiences in her childhood with disrupted attachments to key people in her early life had probably contributed to the development of schizophrenia in her late 30s when she struggled with family life and raising children.

Hope I'm making sense.

I think its all very well claiming a mystical experience but the genuine mystic is someone who can positively integrate that experience into their life. Not suprisingly I haven't had too many mystics approach me for assistance.

 

[Sunstone]

...the genuine mystic is someone who can positively integrate that experience into their life.

Joseph Campbell would agree with you. He once described it this way, "The schizophrenic and the mystic are in the same sea, but the schizophrenic is drowning, while the mystic is swimming."

 

[Dawnofhope]

Nice observation (well, and study). Is there another psychiatric word one can use that mirrors closer related factors of mental health with mysticism? Im kinda on the othervend of the spectrum. Ive had hullucinations before (scared tbe ba-jesus out of me!) But never studied it.

Its important to realise that psychosis can develop from a wide range of scenarios from many different medical health problems that have little to do with mental illness. Brain injury, epilepsy, infection, and adverse drugs are examples. A lot of psychosis occurs due to reacreational drug use. Then there may be an acute stress reaction, having some personality disorders, depression, bipolar or a schizophrenic type illness. Dementia is a common cause in the elderly.

I think we need to carefully consider each person's experience on a case by case basis. I would never make a diagnosis without conducting a proper evaluation.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Its important to realise that psychosis can develop from a wide range of scenarios from many different medical health problems that have little to do with mental illness. Brain injury, epilepsy, infection, and adverse drugs are examples. A lot of psychosis occurs due to reacreational drug use. Then there may be an acute stress reaction, having some personality disorders, depression, bipolar or a schizophrenic type illness. Dementia is a common cause in the elderly.

I think we need to carefully consider each person's experience on a case by case basis. I would never make a diagnosis without conducting a proper evaluation.

True. Id assume there were some short hand word for the relationship with mental and mystical experiences. I wouldnt use the words psychosis nor hollucination to describe it. Most religious people I know dont seem to be hollu* nor psychotic but, like other experiences, I wouldnt see religious an exclusion for some psychological source and relationship.

Im asking more about the mind in general rather than mystical experiences related to psychological illnesses.

 

[Dawnofhope]

True. Id assume there were some short hand word for the relationship with mental and mystical experiences. I wouldnt use the words psychosis nor hollucination to describe it. Most religious people I know dont seem to be hollu* nor psychotic but, like other experiences, I wouldnt see religious an exclusion for some psychological source and relationship.

Im asking more about the mind in general rather than mystical experiences related to psychological illnesses.

As professional we tend to avoid getting too involved with religions and peoples mystic experience unless they become clearly unwell where they can't care for themselves or they are a danger to themselves or others. .

Many Christians believe in demons and satan which I don't believe in. I would never use the word delusional to describe beliefs that differ from my own. We just have a different world view and leave it at that.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

As professional we tend to avoid getting too involved with religions and peoples mystic experience unless they become clearly unwell where they can't care for themselves or they are a danger to themselves or others. .

Many Christians believe in demons and satan which I don't believe in. I would never use the word delusional to describe beliefs that differ from my own. We just have a different world view and leave it at that.

Can you refer to a term thats not related to psychiatric studies and illnesses?

For example, in a magic trick the magician uses slit of hand and misdirection to fool his watcher of seeing the object in one area but its somewhere else. We refer to it as an illusion rather than delusion and hollucinations.

While the last two words can be used (seeing an object thats not there; feeling a sensation when the magician never touched his participant), the two words wouldnt be medically appropriate for that given situation.

Yet, all three refer to the mind.

We use trick, illusion, and magic for the words above. Are there words we can use for mystical experiences without using psychistric terms for them?

 

[Cobol]

I believe the world's religions originated in the psychotic episodes of people with diseased brains.

Mormonism: was started by John Smith, a professional con man. He was by all accounts not “off his meds” on a psychotic bender during his creation of that religion.

Islam: was started by Mohammad (pbwh). According to one documentary, he experienced writhing fits, seizures, or a palsy that accompanied his reported visions of divine revelation. These seem atypical to psychosis, cerebral palsy or a grand mal seizure.

I would argue that modern Christianity is more the result of Saul-turned-Paul than Jesus. Paul had an experience on the road to Damascus, or “Damascus Road Experience” (DRE). If you piece several accounts together: He did experience a vision of Jesus (visual / auditory), saw bright lights, and experienced blindness for 3 days. Also reportedly highly religiously motivated after the fact, with an unspecified periodically troubling “thorn in his flesh.” This constellation of symptoms loans itself to epilepsy and psychosis.

I'd like to clarify that I'm not trying to say that religious people have a mental illness in terms of being dysfunctional in society. What I'm asking is if religiosity is the same qualitative experience/chemical state of the brain, that happens in psychosis just in a mild and functional form.

 

[Sunstone]

I believe the world's religions originated in the psychotic episodes of people with diseased brains.

How do you account for Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism, then?

I'd like to clarify that I'm not trying to say that religious people have a mental illness in terms of being dysfunctional in society. What I'm asking is if religiosity is the same qualitative experience/chemical state of the brain, that happens in psychosis just in a mild and functional form.

I'm sure that some religiosity -- maybe even "a lot" of it -- is more or less created by one form of mental illness or another. But I think it would be terribly naive to suppose that most of it was of that sort.

 

[danieldemol]

Are merely "religious" experiences of god distinguishable from psychosis?

I would say yes via a process of elimination. Psychosis medication prevents psychotic delusions, but even once the psychotic medication is administered successfully treating the psychosis patients may still perceive God.

Now if their perception was a delusion it would have disappeared with the other psychotic delusions that were clearly present before, but not after the medication.

That has been my personal experience.

 

[Katzpur]

Mormonism: was started by John Smith, a professional con man. He was by all accounts not “off his meds” on a psychotic bender during his creation of that religion.

Good grief... you didn't get the man's name right! Why should anybody reading this put any stock in anything else you have to say about him? I was a "code jockey" for thirty years myself (back in the day when Cobol was the latest and greatest), so I suspect you know the ramifications of one eensy weensy coding error. No matter what follows the error, your accuracy has gone down the toilet.

And no, it doesn't bother me in the slightest that you're an atheist. Many of my favorite people on this forum are atheists. Some of them are just a whole lot more concerned with getting their facts straight than you are.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

Religious experiences are quite common, but psychotic ones are rare. People who have religious experiences find them of permanent value, while those who have psychotic hallucinations generally find them disturbing at the time and regard them as nonsense once thay have recovered. Those who have religious experiences live normal lives and often show considerable ability, while psychotics are generally impaired by their illness.

A good source of facts and references is Caroline Franks Davis, The evidential force of religious experience (Oxford, 1989).

 

[Quintessence]

This is slightly off-topic, but can you shed some light on where you came by this distinction between "religious experience" and "mystical experience," @Sunstone?

I'd probably call your distinction "single-sensory experience" and "multisensory experience" instead (with "religious" and "mystical" being entirely interchangeable).