Christian Fundamentalism as mental illness

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
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."

You're being silly again.

I haven't seen the whole article. Only the short paragraph you pasted. It's not a stretch to assume that by "fundamentalism" is meant just that. Fundamentalism as it relates to Christianity entails those doctrines fundamental to the faith, and clearly taught in the scriptures.

Therefore, the fool that wrote what you pasted thinks Christians are suffering from a form of psychosis. And if you would just be honest and say that that is why you posted it in the first place, then we could move on.

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

"Sluggishly progressing schizophrenia"

I'll settle for that. 😵 😉

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

Now why did I think you'd like that term? 🙂

Originally posted by josephw
You're being silly again.

I haven't seen the whole article. Only the short paragraph you pasted. It's not a stretch to assume that by "fundamentalism" is meant just that. Fundamentalism as it relates to Christianity entails those doctrines fundamental to the faith, and clearly taught in the scriptures.

Therefore, the fool that wrote what you pasted thi ...[text shortened]... be honest and say that that is why you posted it in the first place, then we could move on.

You seem to continue to miss the crux of his assertion:
"It is a form of psychosis where normal judgment processes for deciding what is real and unreal are suspended...Logic is suspended even in the face of overwhelming contradictions."

Originally posted by josephw
Now why did I think you'd like that term? 🙂

You don't? Seems like that would apply to all types of fanaticism, not just that of Christian fundamentalists.

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'?

"I am often accused of being too logical and not seeing the 'spiritual' side of things."

Not too logical. I think you see the 'spiritual' side just fine. You simply fail to see it's author is all.

That doesn't make you 'mentally ill' any more than my believing in a creator.

Personally, I think what many suffer from is called psychObamasis. The act of creating divisions and labels in order to control freewill. 😉

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You don't? Seems like that would apply to all types of fanaticism, not just that of Christian fundamentalists.

The world is full of it. Always been that way. We can't do squat about it short of selective extermination.

Like Pol Pot.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You seem to continue to miss the crux of his assertion:
"It is a form of psychosis [b]where normal judgment processes for deciding what is real and unreal are suspended...Logic is suspended even in the face of overwhelming contradictions."[/b]

I think every living human being has at one time or another had the problem in their life.

It's really kind of a boring subject. We just can't go around assigning mental disorder labels to people we think have a mental disorder. We'd all be institutionalized.

On planet earth.

Originally posted by josephw
I think every living human being has at one time or another had the problem in their life.

It's really kind of a boring subject. We just can't go around assigning mental disorder labels to people we think have a mental disorder. We'd all be institutionalized.

On planet earth.

And hopefully they worked themselves out of it or got the necessary help to do so. Ongoing impaired cognitive ability is a problem.

For someone who finds it "boring", you seem to be making quite a few posts about it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
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.

[b]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 behav

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

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.

There are currently no physical tests that can confirm the existence of a mental illness. As I said in my next post, there may be tests in the future.

Otherwise you might argue that no mental illness may ever be diagnosed for fear of causing oppression.

The history of psychiatry is replete with examples of diagnostic criteria we now recognise as being grounded in racism, homophobia etc. We take certain behaviours as normative and describe deviations from that norm as signs of illness. It is to the credit of psychiatry that it has broadened its understanding of what's normative to include a far greater variety of mental/behavioural function as normative and so exclude the worst of psychiatric oppression. However, in retaining the idea that they know what a healthy mind looks like and they can then use that as a base line to determine that other minds are broken there is a risk that they may simply enforcing conformity rather than mental health.

Because psychiatrists and mental health professionals are not generally in the business of hurting people, decisions regarding diagnosis/treatment are usually informed by this insight. I've been working in and around psychiatric services for some time now, and the point you raise is a not infrequent topic of debate within services, though, of course, those debates are also informed by the presence of people who, because of their thoughts and behaviour, are hard not to describe as deeply unwell.

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.

You've been careful how you phrase things here, and the way you've put is certainly not wrong but it snot the whole story.

The definition of mental illness is made by psychiatric professionals meeting, making arguments presenting evidence and then voting to decide what an illness is and its diagnostic criteria. Back in the doctors office, they will attempt to apply that criteria to broadly two different types of patient:
1) People who actively seek psychiatric support (either though there own volition, or through pressure from family and friends) because they have come to believe their may be something “wrong” with them. Now this could be they are experiencing what they feel is unusual mental phenomena, or they're struggling to manage their mood, or, what's more commonly reported, they're struggling to cope. Depending on the “symptoms” someone is experiencing, the psychiatrist will first exclude physical causes and then though interview determine where they belong within the diagnostic schema. Based on this, they will propose a treatment. This is all relatively straightforward because the patient already recognises they may be unwell and is open to receiving treatment, which in turn will be negotiated

2) Then there are people who don't believe they are unwell. They believe that their behaviours and thought processes are as healthy as the next man's; indeed, it is often a symptom of their illness to believe this. How then does psychiatry respond? Well first, it is incredibly difficult to make a diagnosis. Without an interview on which to base a clinical decision there isn't a reliable way to even claim that person is mentally ill, unless there is a marked functional impairment. The reason functional impairment is important, is it an axiom in psychiatry that inability to function may indicate a mental health problem (as is experiencing thoughts of suicide or self-harm). In many countries, the law reflects this and allows forcible assessment and treatment where someone is a danger to themselves or others – though in the U.K. the law speaks of harm to physical health rather than danger because “danger” is too imprecise. So your claim that forcible incarceration is only used in where there is a risk of violence by the patient certainly isn't true in the U.K, and I've be involved in “sectioning” (where someone is forcibly detained under a section of the mental health act) where there harm to physical health was that their health was harmed by being unable to maintain a tenancy. For example, If someone gets evicted in the U.K. because they believe Martians are taking care of there rent and don't pay it themselves, then they can be detained for assessment and treatment because sleeping rough is detrimental to physical health (its a bit more complicated than this, but that's the general gist). In other parts of the world, the examples I've seen suggest that their laws agree in principle with the law in the U.K., but its application may be restricted due to limited resources – so you may be right in practice in those countries, and it will be interesting to see the impact of the U.K.'s austerity measures on the numbers sectioned here.

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.

If they're still “in psychosis” and they identify the fellow sufferer's experience as there same as there own then I'd say generally, no. However, if you may be correct in Thinkofones case simply because if they are ignoring logic and overwhelming contradiction then:
Patient/Doctor A: “You experience the same mental phenomenon as me – you must be mad”
Patient/Doctor B: “Aha! That must mean you're mad too!”
A: “No, not at all”
B: “I guess you're right”

(I'm just foolin'😉

As for the useing this formulation to diagnose a mental health condition. What is the test to determine "normal" judgement? The application of logic is dependant on someones prepositions - i may describe someone as illogical simply because I don't understand their prepositions. What does an overwheming contradiction look like? How is it distinct from an ordinary contradiction?

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

Only after phyisical cause's had been excluded – i.e. infection, migraine, sleep deprivation, the influence of drugs etc., and even then it would have to be a certain kind of hallucination (more than just seeing/hearing things that aren't there) or would need to be accompanied by other symptoms.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
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.

Assuming that good judgment is our normal cognitive abilities. I disagree.
Illness does not cover any lack of perfection.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Assuming that good judgment is our normal cognitive abilities. I disagree.
Illness does not cover any lack of perfection.

I'm not saying that illness covers "any lack of perfection".

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Can you expand on it?

Originally posted by twhitehead
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.

[b]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 behav ...[text shortened]...

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

>>>you were incorrect to state categorically that the issues cannot be overcome ie that there are no tests that can be performed.<<<

Here is a testimony of a woman that read the book of Science and Health and was healed of insanity and the desire of suicide.


SAVED FROM INSANITY AND SUICIDE


A few years ago, while under a sense of darkness and
despair caused by ill health and an unhappy home, Sci-
ence and Health was loaned me with a request that I
should read it.

At that time my daughter was given up by materia
medica to die of lingering consumption, supposed to have
been inherited. My own condition seemed even more
alarming, as insanity was being manifested, and rather
than go to an insane asylum, it seemed to me the only
thing to do was to commit suicide. Heart trouble, kid-
ney complaint, and continual headaches caused from
female trouble were some of the many ailments I had
to contend with. My doctor tried to persuade me to
undergo an operation as a means of relief, but I had
submitted to a severe operation ten years previous, and
found only additional suffering as a result, so I would
not consent.

SCIENCE AND HEALTH
Current Reference: Page 638
Previous Page Next Page



When I began with Science and Health, I read the
chapter on "Prayer" first, and at that time did not sup-
pose it possible for me to remember anything I read,
but felt a sweet sense of God's protection and power,
and a hope that I should at last find Him to be what
I so much needed,--a present help in time of trouble.
Before that chapter on "Prayer" was finished, my daugh-
ter was downstairs eating three meals a day, and daily
growing stronger. Before I had finished reading the
textbook she was well, but never having heard that the
reading of Science and Health healed any one, it was
several months before I gave God the glory.

One by one my many ailments left me, all but the head-
aches; they were less frequent, until at the end of three
years the fear of them was entirely overcome.

Neither myself nor my daughter have ever received
treatments, but the study of the Bible and Science and
Health, the Christian Science textbook by Mrs. Eddy,
has healed us and keeps us well.

While Christian Science was very new to me, I at-
tended an experience meeting in First Church of Christ,
Scientist, Chicago. A gentleman told of an unhappy
woman who was about to separate from her husband.
This gentleman had asked her if she did not love her
husband. She replied, "No; when I married him I
did, but not now." He told her God made man in His
image and likeness, and that He is perfect. He said
to her, "Go home and see only God's perfect man; you
don't need to love a sinful mortal such as you have been
looking upon." The lady followed his advice, as he
told her there is no separation in divine Mind. In a
short time peace and harmony were in her home, and

Current Reference: Page 639
Previous Page Next Page



both husband and wife became members of a Christian
Science church.

This testimony was like a message from heaven to me.
I had received many benefits from the study of Science
and Health, but it had never dawned upon my darkened
consciousness till then how wonderful our God is. I
knew what had taken place in that home could take place
in my unhappy home where there was neither rest nor
peace.

I hopefully took up my cross, and step by step my
burden grew lighter, as I journeyed along, realizing the
presence of the Christ, Truth, that indeed makes us
free. Not all at once did any outward change appear,
but at the end of three years all was peace, all the
members of the family attending church together and
realizing that there is but one Mind.--E. J. B., Supe-
rior, Wis.