Responding to a critic about the rationality of theism...

Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Responding to a critic about the rationality of theism...

I wanted to go point by point again because it seems the objectors make many mistakes.

2 seconds: Hello!

5 seconds: Yes, that was obviously obvious. Shocked

17 seconds: Ok agreed, there can be a distinction.

41: claims there is a flaw in our logic that we aren't cherry picking DSM. First of all, I stated in the first video that I've seen the description as stated in Wiki in other sources, I did in fact cross check wiki, but not in the DSM. Here is one that shows up 6th in a google search for grandiose delusional disorder that does not have the wording that Supe quoted from the DSM and matches wiki: http://www.mentalhealth.com/dis1/p21-ps02.html

"Grandiose Type: delusions of inflated worth, power, knowledge, identity, or special relationship to a deity or famous person"

Here is yet another source that doesn't contain the wording Supe used.
http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic3351.htm
"Grandiose type
* Patients believe that they possess some great and unrecognized talent, have made some important discovery, have a special relationship with a prominent person, or have special religious insight (APA, 2000)."

Simply having "special religious insight" is similar to an overwhelming majority of the theist population. (at least it feels that way, maybe becausethey bark loud)

So while I agree that my research wasn't complete, that wasn't the point I was making. The point I was making was that I was not specifically looking in a DSM IV and selectively cherry picking the wording that worked best for my argument in a deceitful manner. I explained this point to express that my intent to portray "grandiose delusional disorder" in a specific manner was honest. Does Wiki have it worded differently than DSM? Yes, it does. I admit I was indirectly cherry picking, but my point was to express my honest attempts are portraying factual definitions, and your point on this matter was weak. Furthermore, I stated wiki to be a poor source and it was only in the discussion to begin with because someone else had presented it. I posted HER working definition of it on the screen! (melsbasketcase)

For those curious, Supeexcellency referred to a wording in the DSM which states that an example of Grandiose Delusional Disorder is someone who believes they have a special message from God. This example differs from the two examples given above. Because I didn't give Supes example (which proves my point asd well) I was accused of "cherry picking" even though the DSM states the example as an EXAMPLE.

1:01 Captain Obvious to the scene to tell us that the DSM IV is the current DSM. Yeah we know. We unfortunately have to alert people that we actually know a little about this stuff by bragging about the fact that we are at least halfway informed on this issue. We were responding to criticism that we don't know about psychology. It's an ignorant insult to assert that we are ignorant of psychology when Kelly has read the entire DSM III-R (in which delusional disorder DID exist). Yeah, we know Sherlock, we're up to IV. The point is, we have at least half a clue in this field. Or would you not agree that reading the entire DSM III would put one in a more knowledgeable state about psychology than someone who hasn't read it?

2:00-3:20 Doesn't think we respect people by telling them what we think their problems are and what we would call those problems if we are being honest with ourselves. We respectfully disagree.

3:30-4:30 You say I said I didn't understand why cultural significance has anything to do with psychology yet you can hear Kelly state perfectly exactly the case that you make. You misunderstood what I was saying about bizarre. Again, you restated what we said, and worse, claimed we were ignorant of it, and worse yet... that we said we were ignorant of it!

4:32 "I undestand where you are coming from with this" And now I feel like I've just wasted my time responding.

5:10 He admits the definition varies depending on where you go to online. He is also not using the DSM, and seems to completely invalidate the weak argument he made at the 41 second mark. He attributes the variance to lack of updated pages. Funny that our entire argument is that theism is not listed in the DSM and it should be listed in future updates.

up to 6 minutes: Holding my breath as he gives the definition for new terms, that we have not yet entered in to the debate.

6:10 claims there are 3 indicators of disorder and that theism only fits one. Yet I have a list that I think theism tends to fit up to all of these indicators depending on the person inflicted.

Indicators of a delusion

(Munro, 1999)

1. The patient expresses an idea or belief with unusual persistence or force.
2. That idea appears to exert an undue influence on his or her life, and the way of life is often altered to an inexplicable extent.
3. Despite his profound conviction, there is often a quality of secretiveness or suspicion when the patient is questioned about it.
4. The individual tends to be humorless and oversensitive, especially about the belief.
5. There is a quality of centrality: no matter how unlikely it is that these strange things are happening to him, the patient accepts them relatively unquestioningly.
6. An attempt to contradict the belief is likely to arouse an inappropriately strong emotional reaction, often with irritability and hostility.
7. The belief is, at the least, unlikely.
8. The patient is emotionally over-invested in the idea and it overwhelms other elements of his psyche (psychology).
9. The delusion, if acted out, often leads to behaviors which are abnormal and/or out of character, although perhaps understandable in the light of the delusional beliefs.
10. Individuals who know the patient will observe that his belief and behavior are uncharacteristic and alien.

7 minutes... ignoring most of it as I pwn the strawman.

7:24 finally listening again.

7:45 agrees that some Christians hold a dysfunction, at the bare minimum. He just doesn't want it applied to all theism. While I agree that there are some theists that are less delusional (as already stated) to some degree all theists are deluding themselves into believing in a god. If I had to concede 10% of the theistic population to have the other 90% of theism listed in the DSM-V, I would be ok with that.

8:20 points out that he's telling us something we already know, he probably doesn't realize he did this throughout the entire video.

9:16 admits I've admitted this stuff myself

9:40 Seems to miss the point again, that we don't want the field of psychology to fall prey to an argumentum ad populum fallacy, and that theism most often carries with it many other indicators of what we would classify as grandiose delusional disorder. We propose that theism is so dangerous as a meme/virus that it has managed to infect the overwhelming majority and has gone unchecked by doctors as a result of it's popularity. The factors for delusional disorder are inherent in many many theists, we need not look far, yet due to the fact that these people are the norm (fucked up people are the norm) the field of psychology backs down on this issue. We are proposing that they shouldn't. We are proposing that it is precisely because theism has flown under the radar for being so prominent that it is even more dangerous to society than actual people diagnosed with grandiose delusional disorder for reasons other than religion.

"If the thesis of this article is correct, religion goes hand in hand with the basic irrational beliefs of human beings. These keep them dependent, anxious, and hostile, and thereby create and maintain their neuroses and psychoses. What then is the role of psychotherapy in dealing with the religious views of disturbed patients? Obviously, the sane and effective psychotherapist should not—as many contemporary psychoanalytic Jungian, client-centered, and existentialist therapists have contended he should—go along with the patients’ religious orientation and try to help these patients live successfully with their religions, for this is equivalent to trying to help them live successfully with their emotional illness." - Albert Ellis, the most important psychologist of our time.

He called his video, part 1, so if I have time I'll address the next one when I see it, and I have time.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
JSResponds, I saw you

JSResponds,

I saw you uploaded 2 other videos. Feel free to attach them to any of mine on this issue. I have a ton of work to do and will try to get back to the soon. If any other member of the community would like to try and respond to any pertinent points in his 2nd and 3rd video, please feel free.

JS, I must say I felt less interested in responding after seeing what you lobbed at me in my first video. As far as frustrating goes, it certainly is frustrating to have to respond to someone who is almost making my case, and is seemingly restating what I've said.

Anyone else want to grab #2 or #3?

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
jsresponds wrote: (YouTube

jsresponds wrote:
(YouTube sucks. This will come in two parts due to length restrictions.)

I'll follow your points and then state my overall message. The last portion of this e-mail should perhaps be read first, in order to set the tone. I'll leave that up to you. Thank you for your time and consideration. If I'm wrong in anything, I hope to be proven so and understand my error.

Also, I don't mean to exclude Kelly, though I focus my words toward Brian. Hi, Kelly.

41: claims there is a flaw in our logic that we aren't cherry picking DSM.
-My point was that while I understood that you were attempting to get resources, you ended up trusting a seriously flawed source, Wikipedia, and didn't go to the DSM, which would have been easy and simply the right thing to do.

1:01 Captain Obvious to the scene to tell us that the DSM IV is the current DSM.
-The point was that it is obvious, and yet you were still using it as some sort of appeal to authority. Sorry, reading the DSM 3 doesn't increase your authority on the specific subject in question.

2:00-3:20 Doesn't think we respect people by telling them what we think their problems are and what we would call those problems if we are being honest with ourselves. We respectfully disagree.
-You missed my point. Telling someone about what their problem entails is necessary, but if one just came out with the diagnostic term and label is obviously going to put them off and harm your ability to do your job. You are essentially taking this (self-admitted) blanket term and throwing it at people, and certainly not in an understanding manner. (And so that I'm not misinterpreted, I do mean that you should do it with understanding, not that you should be wussy about it.)

3:30-4:30 You say I said I didn't understand why cultural significance has anything to do with psychology yet you can hear Kelly state perfectly exactly the case that you make.
-My point, which is elaborated on in the other videos, is that "normative" is an extremely important aspect of psychology. I don't disagree that it wouldn't be statistically rare if an individual theist lived in a solely atheistic society, but there are other aspects of "normative" to be included. I pointed this out because it didn't seem that you understood why "normal" (in terms of statistical rarity or otherwise) was important. If I misunderstood, I apologize.

4:32 "I understand where you are coming from with this" And now I feel like I've just wasted my time responding.
-Partly you did. It'd be best to hear my whole argument out at once before you respond. Laughing out loud What I understood was that you believed that if it was an individual theist in an atheistic society, it wouldn't be stat rare/cult unexpected, and that you believe that will (hopefully) be the case in the future.

 (Part 2)
5:10 He admits the definition varies depending on where you go to online. He is also not using the DSM, and seems to completely invalidate the weak argument he made at the 41 second mark. He attributes the variance to lack of updated pages. Funny that our entire argument is that theism is not listed in the DSM and it should be listed in future updates.
-I'm using an updated source that only elaborates on the criteria used for the DSM-IV-TR, which invalidates nothing of my argument. I used this source because it illustrates the concepts better and is, again, an updated source. (I don't know if you realize, but the DSM-IV has had several revisions, itself. My text is a recent source.)

It's not "funny" that your argument is that it isn't in the DSM. For it to even BE in the DSM, you should be using the DSM definitions of disorder and delusion.

6:10 claims there are 3 indicators of disorder and that theism only fits one. Yet I have a list that I think theism tends to fit up to all of these indicators depending on the person inflicted.
-You completely ignored the criteria. This is important because they were the criteria for a Mental Disorder, of which delusion is a Subset. For a person to be Delusional, they must First meet the criteria for a mental disorder.

What you used are aspects of a prototype, which alone is not significant enough.

7:45 agrees that some Christians hold a dysfunction, at the bare minimum. He just doesn't want it applied to all theism. While I agree that there are some theists that are less delusional (as already stated) to some degree all theists are deluding themselves into believing in a god. If I had to concede 10% of the theistic population to have the other 90% of theism listed in the DSM-V, I would be ok with that.
-These are your Main problems. You Believe, without research (or apparently in-depth thought and proofs) that all theists delude themselves to some degree. Furthermore, you're willing to sacrifice people who may not or Do Not belong to the category for the sake of the ends. What if you did the same with any other serious mental disorder? Seriously, Brian. That's creating discrimination, to apply penalties (which a label is) to undeserving individuals.

It makes the most sense to develop a disorder type that sets specific criteria that only truly delusional and abnormal (dysfunctional, distressed, and statistically rare{which these people May actually be, with a limited definition range}) individuals meet.

8:20 points out that he's telling us something we already know, he probably doesn't realize he did this throughout the entire video.
-I was only referring to the fact that there are theists who don't apply crazy logic to justify their belief or god, and therefore wasn't going to go into an in-depth explanation of that.
And here you're getting condescending.

9:40 Seems to miss the point again, that we don't want the field of psychology to fall prey to an argumentum ad populum fallacy, and that theism most often carries with it many other indicators of what we would classify as grandiose delusional disorder.
-I agree that psychology shouldn't fall to the fallacy, and that statistically rare/culturally unexpected shouldn't be applied in all cases, but that doesn't invalidate it for all consideration of abnormality. It is precisely Because I agree with you that it shouldn't be the concern in this case that my next videos argue against your idea on the other aspects of abnormality.

I also disagree that individuals who have a grandiose delusional disorder who are non-religious are less dangerous than those with religious belief. Both are equally dangerous due to the definition of the disorder.

He called his video, part 1, so if I have time I'll address the next one when I see it, and I have time.
-I look forward to it. I hope that I was clearer in my other videos and that you start to understand my points for revisiting what I believed you understood. I want us to be working on the same argument with the same conceptions in consideration.

I also apologize for any typos. ~_~

 

 ________________________________ 

I tend to get so locked up in refuting that I forget to praise. For example, I only focused on it seeming that you mentioned reading the DSM 3 as an appeal to authority, rather than also addressing that you were "called out", so to say, on having no understanding of psychology and were defending yourself.

For that, I apologize.

I understand and appreciate that your intent is to help society by removing delusions (which would be a mental disorder, which would entail self-harmful distress and dysfunction, and stigmas resulting from rarity), and heal individuals. What we disagree on is which (or how many) individuals need help.

You guys have also been under a lot of recent stress, and I thank you for not exploding at your critics, which would be understandable to do. Moreover, you were kind in asking me to link to your response in my video description (even if you weren't always so kind in said response).

My response to say that I'd do so once you responded to the entire argument came off to me as condescending once I had read it, so I deleted it and included the link in my descrip. I want to point out my reason for that initial statement, which is that I didn't want people to misunderstand me by reading your response before they viewed the other parts, and also because I didn't want your misunderstanding to be attacked, especially since my lack of clarity either entailed or lent to that misunderstanding.

I also want to apologize, because of some of the parts in my videos also seemed to be snarky. That wasn't my intention. I wanted to exaggerate the situation a little bit to make my point.

Thanks again for the response, which you didn't even need to do in the first place, and, again, for your time and consideration. I think I'll stop spamming your inbox now.

 

I don't even have time to read it all right now, but if anyone wants to take any portion of this, please feel free.  JSresponds, responded to my response of his response.  Eye-wink 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
 A good blast from the past

 A good blast from the past thread with some Albert Ellis quotes and some thoughts on theism being a mental disorder.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10549
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I missed this the first time

I missed this the first time around.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 362
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
...

Sapient wrote:
"If the thesis of this article is correct, religion goes hand in hand with the basic irrational beliefs of human beings.  These keep them dependent, anxious, and hostile, and thereby create and maintain their neuroses and psychoses.  What then is the role of psychotherapy in dealing with the religious views of disturbed patients? Obviously, the sane and effective psychotherapist should not—as many contemporary psychoanalytic Jungian, client-centered, and existentialist therapists have contended he should—go along with the patients’ religious orientation and try to help these patients live successfully with their religions, for this is equivalent to trying to help them live successfully with their emotional illness." - Albert Ellis, the most important psychologist of our time. 

 

This quote reminds the of show "Psychic Kids: Children of the Paranormal" on A&E.  In the show, kids with apparent psychic power are confused, scared, and sometimes impressed, with their experiences.  Their parents sometimes take them to a psychiatrist who diagnoses them with a disorder, sometimes giving them medication and even hospitalizing them.

When the kids are on the show they meet up with three psychics, and a psychotherapist who "integrates the use of psychotherapy with the world of spirituality and past life regression."  The psychics teach the kids how to develop their abilities and take control of them (which ironically plunges them deeper into the depths of psychosis). 

What these kids need is a good dose of Ellis!  Teach them rationality and science to explain their experiences, not new age philosophy.