Mental Health, Mormonism and Delusion (Update)

[_DrW]

Mikwut,

In an earlier post you asked me for an example of something that I would assert or express as a belief. Here are two:

1. The belief that one should treat others as they themselves would be treated is, in my view, an excellent basis for a worldview.

2. I also believe, as has been expressed by others on this thread, that one must demand evidence as a foundation of belief, and that the best way to derive useful knowledge from evidence is the scientific method.

When facts asserted by religion differ from facts asserted by science, the scientific assertions are invariably shown to be the best explanation of the data. Science wins in this battle every time. One would think that religionists would eventually figure that out.

[_mikwut]

Hello DrW,

The belief that one should treat others as they themselves would be treated is, in my view, an excellent basis for a worldview

Why?

I also believe, as has been expressed by others on this thread, that one must demand evidence as a foundation of belief, and that the best way to derive useful knowledge from evidence is the scientific method.

Why?

Am I to understand those as two tenets of the "scientistic world view"?

regards, mikwut

[_mikwut]

Doctor,

Regardless, I doubt that you'll ever arrive at an "objectively valid" means of measuring this sort of thing. Probably, at best we'll get something that's inter-subjective--sort of like what you see when sociologists of religion try to assess how much tension there is between New Religious Movements and "apostates." In that specific instance, the sociologists argue that the level of tension has to do with how "marginal" or "cut off" from the mainstream the NRM is. So, my question is: Would something similar apply in this case? I.e., if belief in blood atonement, polygamy, or ixnay on the asturbationmay are way off from the mainstream, can we label them "wack"?

So atheism would be "wack" in the U.S. but in parts of Europe it would be rational?

I guess what I'm asking you mikwut, is this: Do you think any Mormon beliefs are flat-out "nutty"? Maybe you do think so but don't want to say, because you think it's impolite?

Yes I do hold some opinions in that accord but so what? I have a friend who brings his BMW to the BMW dealership religiously to receive regular maintenance. I take my vehicle to a non-dealership mechanic and receive the same services on the vehicle for much less. We have discussed many times that post the internet auto dealerships primarily make their profit on exploiting the posh necessity of having the dealership service the vehicle and that it is based entirely on a nicer decor and free bottled water and being called sir - and forcing the habit by offering a warranty through the dealership. I think that is nutty to pay so much more for nothing he doesn't. We all believe nutty things, some stores will rather than clearance certain items raise the price much higher to get rid of stock - and it often works because people believe they are receiving value rather than bargain. We believe all kinds of strange things and can be led to believe 'nutty' things, what's so important about past Mormon prophets thoughts about metaphysical repentance that nary a Mormon believes anymore?

If truth is paramount for someone - marketing labels like "delusional" shouldn't be sought after, precision should.

Huh? "Revelatory" wrong? "Causally" wrong? You said above that there are legitimate, world-view-based warrants for this stuff. What do you think those "warrants" are?

Revelation from God, pragmatic utilization of the spirit - those seem to be what most Mormons testimonies are based on.

regards, mikwut

[_EAllusion]

T
In order to agree with his up-thread opinion of Warren Jeffs as not delusional, by his own definitions and criteria, one would have to consider the FLDS Church as a socially acceptable ("culturally acceptable") religion. The fact that society has put Jeffs is in prison for the rest of his life for practicing this religion puts its status as socially acceptable in serious doubt.

No, that still misunderstands it. It's not how acceptable the religion is to society that matters. Remember, what we're looking at is how a particular thought gets into someone's brain. So if you grow up FLDS or are converted through a ordinary conversion process, chances are this didn't happen because of delusional thinking in the clinical sense. Warren Jeffs' acting as though it is normal for him to receive revelations from God isn't a good indicator of delusional thinking in his case because he happens to be part of a subculture where that sort of thing is normal. It's more likely he got the idea from that then him being stricken with delusional thoughts in the way some other person might be if they are claiming to receive revelations from God. Jeffs could be delusional, but you don't have much evidence of that if all you can point to is him doing things that his lifelong religion has taught him to do.

I've been in situations where I've dealt with clients who had utterly wacky, idiosyncratic religious beliefs and struggled to figure the line between "quirky belief" and "sign of psychotic relapse." This can be challenging, but the reason it is challenging is because delusions aren't just wacky beliefs.

[_DrW]

Hello DrW,

The belief that one should treat others as they themselves would be treated is, in my view, an excellent basis for a worldview

Why?

I also believe, as has been expressed by others on this thread, that one must demand evidence as a foundation of belief, and that the best way to derive useful knowledge from evidence is the scientific method.

Why?

Am I to understand those as two tenets of the "scientistic world view"?

regards, mikwut

I will not be responding to your first two questions. You asked for an example and I provided two.

With regard to the third question, a belief in the preeminence of the scientific method as a means of gaining knowledge and understanding the world is a main tenet of scientism. Other than the fact that it (the Golden Rule) is a consequence of empathy, a trait that appears to evolve naturally in many social animals, the first stated belief has nothing to do with scientism.

By the way, the adjective "scientistic" is often used as a pejorative term by religionists (as we saw from DCP when he was on the board) and others, to denote a perceived overreliance on the scientific method.

While I don't claim that the scientific method is the only way to gain knowledge, I do think that beliefs should be put to the test of the scientific method and checked against the evidence whenever possible.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Mikwut:

It's clear that your participation in this thread has been entirely due to your personal anger/offense that anyone would suggest that certain Mormon beliefs ought to be labled "delusional," and yet as you now admit, you yourself think that certain LDS beliefs are "wack."

[_mikwut]

DrW,

I will not be responding to your first two questions. You asked for an example and I provided two.

A simple scientific paper link would do fine.

With regard to the third question, a belief in the preeminence of the scientific method as a means of gaining knowledge and understanding the world is a main tenet of scientism. Other than the fact that it (the Golden Rule) is a consequence of empathy, a trait that appears to evolve naturally in many social animals, the first stated belief has nothing to do with scientism.

Do you think that word means what I think it means? To my understanding scientism refers to a belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints. It is utilized to describe a dogmatic utilization of scientific methodology and a reduction of all knowledge to only that which is measurable or empirical. It is usually perjoritive in its use, as in science on steroids or applied in over the top or excessive manners. Or it is even used to describe the improper use of science or scientific claims such as claiming 'science' for philosophical or ideological usages.

Is this how you are using the term?

While I don't claim that the scientific method is the only way to gain knowledge, I do think that beliefs should be put to the test of the scientific method and checked against the evidence whenever possible.

Agreed. What are the other avenues for reliable knowledge?

mikwut

[_DrW]

No, that still misunderstands it. It's not how acceptable the religion is to society that matters. Remember, what we're looking at is how a particular thought gets into someone's brain. So if you grow up FLDS or are converted through a ordinary conversion process, chances are this didn't happen because of delusional thinking in the clinical sense. Warren Jeffs' acting as though it is normal for him to receive revelations from God isn't a good indicator of delusional thinking in his case because he happens to be part of a subculture where that sort of thing is normal. It's more likely he got the idea from that then him being stricken with delusional thoughts in the way some other person might be if they are claiming to receive revelations from God. Jeffs could be delusional, but you don't have much evidence of that if all you can point to is him doing things that his lifelong religion has taught him to do.

I've been in situations where I've dealt with clients who had utterly wacky, idiosyncratic religious beliefs and struggled to figure the line between "quirky belief" and "sign of psychotic relapse." This can be challenging, but the reason it is challenging is because delusions aren't just wacky beliefs.

Okay. Got it. Thanks. I appreciate your sticking with it until understanding descended.

So Warren Jeffs may indeed be delusional, but a clinical determination cannot be made from the evidence that you have seen, said evidence not including interview notes of a qualified clinician who was specifically tasked with making this determination. And in the absence of such evidence, you would not consider him as suffering from delusional disorder.

So, if Jeffs is not clinically delusional, would you say that FLDS (non-clinically delusional) persistent false beliefs are on par with, or not qualitatively different from, LSD (non-clinically delusional) persistent false beliefs?

[_mikwut]

Doctor,

It's clear that your participation in this thread has been entirely due to your personal anger/offense that anyone would suggest that certain Mormon beliefs ought to be labled "delusional," and yet as you now admit, you yourself think that certain LDS beliefs are "wack."

I think precision in how we hold beliefs is important and should be important to others. I think cartoonish categorizations of others' and entire movements' beliefs is ridiculous and counterproductive towards obtaining proper truth and perspective.

I think categorizing or distorting my posts is "wack".

Your use of descriptors such as anger/offense mind tricks with those that disagree with you has no sway with me try something else.

I think those that utilize the DSM and tangentially still attempt to gain cache from it even after it is shown to be a non starter are angry.

regards, mikwut

[Guest]

mikwut,

You have written more than a dozen posts on this thread and still have not provided one cogent argument or reason why the definition and DSM-V criteria I provided would not apply, without exception, to one who believed in Mormonism to a sufficient extent so as to be able to honestly obtain a temple recommend.

EAllusion has stated why Warren Jeffs may not be clinically delusional, and that was very helpful (to me anyway). However, no claim of a clinical diagnosis of delusional disorder was made in the OP. In fact, the idea or claim of a clinical diagnosis for believing LDS was specifically ruled out and taken off the table in the OP, because religious beliefs were given a pass.

What I claimed is that the persistent false beliefs of the TBM met the definitions and criteria provided for delusional disorder, sans the cultural or religious caveat.

Now, rather than continue to obfuscate, deflect, delay and deny, why don't you either point out one or more of the definitions or criteria listed in the OP that does not apply, and explain why, or simply say something like "hmm, interesting idea", and then stop digging?