Christian Fundamentalism as mental illness

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Just as physical illnesses vary widely as to severity, so do mental illnesses. Many people are able to function reasonably well despite their illnesses, both physical and mental. Just because they can and do is no reason to not label them "illnesses".

If you reread the quote you'll see that it's not just about not "consistently act[ing] in a logical m ...[text shortened]... ..Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin."[/quote]

Just as physical illnesses vary widely as to severity, so do mental illnesses. Many people are able to function reasonably well despite their illnesses, both physical and mental. Just because they can and do is no reason to not label them "illnesses".

I think a statement like that would make many psychiatrists deeply uncomfortable. If someone is functioning “reasonably well”, then there is usually little reason to suppose they have a mental illness. Unless you are aware of some physical tests that these guys have overlooked:

YouTube


Saying that, I am curious to know how far you think we should take this approach. It's possible that some Christian fundamentalists may submit willingly to treatment, but given that they don't realise that they're mad, it is more likely that they'll need to be compelled to receive treatment. Do you see court orders used to compel fundamentalists to be medicated in the community being successful? Or do you think extended periods of incarceration in mental institutions will be necessary? How “cured” will someone need to be before they can be discharged from mental health services? Would you accept it if they just accepted that they're mad and agree never to participate in elections (though we could just enact laws that dis-enfranchise fundamentalists)? Or would you require them to complete a New Testament comprehension exercise where they give an interpretation of the words of Jesus that agrees with yours? How would you know if they were just saying what the psychiatrist wanted to hear, and not secretly still fundamentalists?

Originally posted by whodey
Would you like a translation? When you get the prompt to reread the post that means no comment and end of discussion. 😉

Actually, it's a request to reread my post. Imagine that.

Yet another Christian fundamentalist using underhanded tactics to disparage others. Imagine that.

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"Actually what it seems to be about is them holding beliefs even against evidence to the contrary rather rather than them believing in the Bible in general."

No. It is about Christian fundamentalism being a form of psychosis.

Like believing Jesus rose from the dead.

Don't be duped by your own biases and prejudices.[/b]

Seeing as he doesn't mention "believing Jesus rose from the dead", I'd have to say that your assertion is a distortion of what he actually said.

Perhaps it is you who are "duped by your own biases and prejudices."

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Came across the following embedded in an article:
[quote]As a psychologist I have come to realize that Christian fundamentalism is a form of mental illness. It is a form of psychosis where normal judgment processes for deciding what is real and unreal are suspended, and are replaced with an obsession for justifying beliefs using interpretations of an anc ...[text shortened]... se their beliefs are unsound and so they are unable to reconcile the contradictions via reason?

I found the article the quote comes from – turns out your “psychologist” wants to call this disorder: “fundamentalism psychosis” or synonymously, “fanatical psychosis.” I would debate the use of fanatical as a synonym for fundamentalist, but its irrelevant as I think there is already a diagnostic label for this disorder. Its called Sluggishly progressing schizophrenia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sluggishly_progressing_schizophrenia

Originally posted by Nimzofish
[b] Just as physical illnesses vary widely as to severity, so do mental illnesses. Many people are able to function reasonably well despite their illnesses, both physical and mental. Just because they can and do is no reason to not label them "illnesses".

I think a statement like that would make many psychiatrists deeply uncomfortable. If someone i just saying what the psychiatrist wanted to hear, and not secretly still fundamentalists?[/b]

I have to think you're just goofin' on me here.

That said, is there a reason that you'd expect there to be physical tests for diagnosing mental illness? Would you similarly expect there to be mental tests for diagnosing say, a heart condition? While some physical tests may be helpful in the diagnosis of mental illness and vice versa, it doesn't seem reasonable to expect there to be.

As for the rest of your post, I think you're more than getting ahead of what the post was about.

Originally posted by Nimzofish
I found the article the quote comes from – turns out your “psychologist” wants to call this disorder: “fundamentalism psychosis” or synonymously, “fanatical psychosis.” I would debate the use of fanatical as a synonym for fundamentalist, but its irrelevant as I think there is already a diagnostic label for this disorder. Its called Sluggishly progressing schizophrenia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sluggishly_progressing_schizophrenia

Actually, the term "fanatical psychosis" would seem to have broader application and would therefore be more useful.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Just as physical illnesses vary widely as to severity, so do mental illnesses. Many people are able to function reasonably well despite their illnesses, both physical and mental. Just because they can and do is no reason to not label them "illnesses".

If you reread the quote you'll see that it's not just about not "consistently act[ing] in a logical m ...[text shortened]... e suspended...[and] Logic is suspended even in the face of overwhelming contradictions."

But illness is generally defined as a condition that is either abnormal, or at least caused by some external factor, or some failure to function properly due to genetic factors.
What you are describing seems to be normal human behavior and not indicative of a disease, or genetic fault.

Just because they can and do is no reason to not label them "illnesses".
Actually there are good reasons for not labeling some conditions 'illnesses'. Although it is popular to label things like ADD a 'disorder', it is questionable as to whether such a diagnosis should be made. Every person is different, why should we label anyone who doesn't think and act exactly the way we would like them to as 'mentally ill'. And who gets to decide what is 'normal'?
I am often accused of being too logical and not seeing the 'spiritual' side of things. Am I mentally ill? Since theists are in the majority, surely it is those lacking the condition that should be labeled 'ill'?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I have to think you're just goofin' on me here.

That said, is there a reason that you'd expect there to be physical tests for diagnosing mental illness? Would you similarly expect there to be mental tests for diagnosing say, a heart condition? While some physical tests may be helpful in the diagnosis of mental illness and vice versa, it doesn't seem re ...[text shortened]... r the rest of your post, I think you're more than getting ahead of what the post was about.

I have to think you're just goofin' on me here.

Nope, not goofin' at all. You are trying to describe a new mental health condition that a) can't be detected by any physical test and b) doesn't impact on someone's ability to function in society. In fact, the only symptom you've offered is that these people don't agree with you. This is the most peculiar illness I've ever heard of. Actually, thats not true, Drapetomania is much more peculiar, albiet along the same lines as what your suggesting.

There are plenty of ways you can dismiss people you disagree with. You can dismiss them as unsophisticated or uneducated. You can claim they have secret motivations for holding their contrarian views. But when you try to construct those views as being a symptom of mental illness your going down a far more dangerous road. Diagnostic criteria have in the past been used to oppress those whose behaviour or views disagree with social norms (e.g. homosexuality), a kind of medical argumentum ad populem. In practice, modern psychiatry tries to avoid questions about normative behaviours, and focuses on function instead – if someone isn't functioning well (able to hold a job, pay their bills, keep themselves clean etc.) then there may be grounds to suppose there is a mental health problem. Even then, there can be philosophical issues that make practitioners uncomfortable.

That said, is there a reason that you'd expect there to be physical tests for diagnosing mental illness? Would you similarly expect there to be mental tests for diagnosing say, a heart condition? While some physical tests may be helpful in the diagnosis of mental illness and vice versa, it doesn't seem reasonable to expect there to be.

The mind is one of the things the brain is doing in the same way that the heart is beating. If there is something wrong with the heart beat, it is a reasonable expectation that further tests will reveal something wrong with the heart. In the same way, if the mind is broken it is not unreasonable to suppose that there is something wrong with the brain. It is entirely possible that the reason there are no brain tests for mental health problems is because we don't enough about the brain, or, more likely in my view, we don't know enough about the mind. Without a physical test to say “this brain is healthy” or “this brain is broken”, then we are stuck with function. And if you're claiming that sufferers of fanatical psychosis are functional, how then can we say they are suffering an illness?

As for the rest of your post, I think you're more than getting ahead of what the post was about.

Not at all. I suspect that your concern for the mental health of fundamentalists is a rhetorical strategy to dismiss them and what they say. If there was more too it than this, I would expect you would have considered how they could be restored to good mental health.

Originally posted by Nimzofish
Nope, not goofin' at all. You are trying to describe a new mental health condition that a) can't be detected by any physical test and b) doesn't impact on someone's ability to function in society. In fact, the only symptom you've offered is that these people don't agree with you.

Although I disagree with ThinkOfOne in the use of the term 'illness', I disagree with you that what he was referring too cannot be detected via tests (it can), and does impact on the way a person functions in society. Whether that can be described as 'ability to function in society' is of course debatable, but then if someone truly cannot function then they are dead, so that criteria is always one of degree.
Finally, he was not referring to people who disagree with him. He was referring to people who deliberately suspend logic even in the face of overwhelming contradictions because of their beliefs.

Where I also disagree with ThinkOfOne is in his labeling of such people as 'fundamentalists'. In my experience every theist (and possibly every human being) shows those characteristics at one time or another. I know that when it comes to love, I have exhibited that behavior.
A large proportion of people I know are superstitious in addition to being religious, and that could be described in similar terms.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Although I disagree with ThinkOfOne in the use of the term 'illness', I disagree with you that what he was referring too cannot be detected via tests (it can), and does impact on the way a person functions in society. Whether that can be described as 'ability to function in society' is of course debatable, but then if someone truly cannot function then th ...[text shortened]... uperstitious in addition to being religious, and that could be described in similar terms.

Although I disagree with ThinkOfOne in the use of the term 'illness'...

My objection to ThinkOfOne is entirely around his use of illness to describe the thought processes of fundamentalists. Though I may have not explained myself very clearly, I was hoping to point out a) some of methodological issues relating to applying the medical model to mental phenomenon and b) highlight how the creation of psychiatric diagnostic criteria has been used in the past to oppress and disenfranchise people whose views, lifestyle or behaviours disagreed with those of people in power. I also thought it relevant to stress how modern psychiatry responds to mental illness and what the implications may be for people who meet his diagnostic criteria.

I disagree with you that what he was referring too cannot be detected via tests (it can), and does impact on the way a person functions in society. Whether that can be described as 'ability to function in society' is of course debatable, but then if someone truly cannot function then they are dead, so that criteria is always one of degree.

If we're not calling it an illness, then I don't necessarily disagree with you – after all, you're only saying (I think) you can do tests to discover how people think and how people think impacts how they function.

Finally, he was not referring to people who disagree with him. He was referring to people who deliberately suspend logic even in the face of overwhelming contradictions because of their beliefs.

I deliberately ignored this because if we're talking about mental illness, its virtually useless as a diagnostic tool and in a medical sense, amounts to simply not agreeing to someone's view of reality.

Originally posted by Nimzofish
My objection to ThinkOfOne is entirely around his use of illness to describe the thought processes of fundamentalists. Though I may have not explained myself very clearly, I was hoping to point out a) some of methodological issues relating to applying the medical model to mental phenomenon

You may be correct that there are methodological issues, but you were incorrect to state categorically that the issues cannot be overcome ie that there are no tests that can be performed.

and b) highlight how the creation of psychiatric diagnostic criteria has been used in the past to oppress and disenfranchise people whose views, lifestyle or behaviours disagreed with those of people in power.
Quite true, but simply highlighting it and claiming it applies in this case are two very different things. Otherwise you might argue that no mental illness may ever be diagnosed for fear of causing oppression.

I also thought it relevant to stress how modern psychiatry responds to mental illness and what the implications may be for people who meet his diagnostic criteria.
Well you were wrong. Modern psychiatry responds to mental illness by:
a) allowing the patient to function as is if possible.
b) attempting to treat the patient if it seems such treatment would be deemed necessary.
c) drastic measure such as you suggested (forcible treatment or incarceration) only really take place when there is a risk of violence by the patient.

I disagree with you that what he was referring too cannot be detected via tests (it can), and does impact on the way a person functions in society. Whether that can be described as 'ability to function in society' is of course debatable, but then if someone truly cannot function then they are dead, so that criteria is always one of degree.

If we're not calling it an illness, then I don't necessarily disagree with you – after all, you're only saying (I think) you can do tests to discover how people think and how people think impacts how they function.

I deliberately ignored this because if we're talking about mental illness, its virtually useless as a diagnostic tool and in a medical sense, amounts to simply not agreeing to someone's view of reality.
I disagree that it is in any way equivalent to disagreeing with someone elses view. If anything a fellow sufferer should be perfectly capable of making the diagnosis.

I must also point out that halucinations are also considered a sign of mental illness.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But illness is generally defined as a condition that is either abnormal, or at least caused by some external factor, or some failure to function properly due to genetic factors.
What you are describing seems to be normal human behavior and not indicative of a disease, or genetic fault.

[b]Just because they can and do is no reason to not label them "il majority, surely it is those lacking the condition that should be labeled 'ill'?

Are you mentally ill? I think we all are, you included. But my defintion of mental illness goes along of the lines of us being divided from our scource/God /our origonal natures/ our dharmas.
Usually there a s bunch of "professionals" that label you . However these "professionals" themselves are mainly interested in suicide prevention and reprogramming individuals so they may be reassimilated back into the power paradigm that is our modern society.These professionals know very little about mental health as it is quite a fledgling science.

You may well disagree witth my interpretation , but could you point out to me where?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Are you mentally ill? I think we all are, you included. But my defintion of mental illness goes along of the lines of us being divided from our scource/God /our origonal natures/ our dharmas.

I see nothing wrong with your definition (as long as it is clear what you mean when you use it), and admit that under you definition you would describe me as mentally ill.
However, since I don't believe there is any such thing as 'our source'/God/'original natures'/dharmas, I wouldn't generally consider it a useful definition.

Usually there a s bunch of "professionals" that label you . However these "professionals" themselves are mainly interested in suicide prevention and reprogramming individuals so they may be reassimilated back into the power paradigm that is our modern society.These professionals know very little about mental health as it is quite a fledgling science.
The mental health professionals I have met had no particular interest in 'reprogramming' individuals. I wouldn't call the science any more 'fledgling' than any other branch of medicine. Sure we cant cure everything nor identify the cause of everything, but that applies throughout medicine. We cant even cure the common cold.
In the cases I am personally acquainted with of mental illness, it is the person or the persons family that goes to the mental health professional and requests treatment.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But illness is generally defined as a condition that is either abnormal, or at least caused by some external factor, or some failure to function properly due to genetic factors.
What you are describing seems to be normal human behavior and not indicative of a disease, or genetic fault.

[b]Just because they can and do is no reason to not label them "il majority, surely it is those lacking the condition that should be labeled 'ill'?

[/b]

from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/illness?show=0&t=1287172538
Illness
a : an unhealthy condition of body or mind

Basically "illness" is an absence of "heath". I have to believe that any condition where "judgment processes for deciding what is real and unreal are suspended...[and] Logic is suspended even in the face of overwhelming contradictions" would be outside the bounds of mental "health". There is a clear impairment of cognitive abilities.

You didn't comment on the example I gave in my previous post to you. Would you not characterize that as an impairment of cognitive abilities?

I am often accused of being too logical and not seeing the 'spiritual' side of things. Am I mentally ill? Since theists are in the majority, surely it is those lacking the condition that should be labeled 'ill'?

Any chance such accusations usually arise when the theist is unable to come up with a logical argument? Seems like it's just a blanket way of avoiding issues.

This thread should be in science, not spirituality