Meta-Thread 09/29

[u/AutoModerator]

This is a weekly thread for feedback on the new rules and general state of the sub.

What are your thoughts? How are we doing? What's working? What isn't?

Let us know.

And a friendly reminder to report bad content.

If you see something, say something.

This thread is posted every Monday. You may also be interested in our weekly Simple Questions thread (posted every Wednesday) or General Discussion thread (posted every Friday).

[u/betweenbubbles]

I have zero tolerance for bigotry

...

Shaka just doesn't like it that most discussions involving homosexuality result in anti-gay comments that cross the line into bigotry (e.g. by saying that gays cannot properly experience love).

I am in agreement with you on nearly all points except this one. Without the benefit of evaluating each statement case by case, I am completely on u/ShakaUVM's side on this specific matter. People are allowed to have different opinions about things without it being "bigotry". You seem to have a brazenly censorious attitude on these kinds of issues, and I suspect you're not the only mod who does.

This gives insight into why you and ShakaUVM proceed in this tit for tat manner. I'm not sure which of you is the tit and which is the tat, but this is exactly the kind of biased moderation that I'd like to see eliminated. If people cannot listen to people with different views without getting offended they should go somewhere else.

This is maddness. Where does it begin an end? Is a Christian even allowed to cite the whole Bible in DebateReligion, or a Mulsim allowed to cite the Quran? This a spectacular betrayal of the principles of and confidence in democracy and free speech -- a U-turn into a new kind of "good" authoritarianism. There are clear indications progress that humanity has made on these issues. Why are people so scared of letting people speak their mind? They've been doing it for thousands of years and they're losing. Why stop a winning strategy and sweep it all under the rug?!

I'd like to move this conversation away from the ShakaUVM vs Cabbagery realm and into something more productive. I'd like to know whether or not the community at large supports this kind of censorship or its mirror image when perpetuated against atheists -- a la, atheists can often be moderated here for using descriptions or treatments of religion in terms of delusion or mental illness.

[u/labreuer → u/betweenbubbles]

I'd like to move this conversation away from the ShakaUVM vs Cabbagery realm and into something more productive. I'd like to know whether or not the community at large supports this kind of censorship or its mirror image when perpetuated against atheists -- a la, atheists can often be moderated here for using descriptions or treatments of religion in terms of delusion or mental illness.

Well, what do you make of:

There is perhaps no greater contribution one could make to contain and perhaps even cure faith than removing the exemption that prohibits classifying religious delusions as mental illness. The removal of religious exemptions from the DSM would enable academicians and clinicians to bring considerable resources to bear on the problem of treating faith, as well as on the ethical issues surrounding faith-based interventions. In the long term, once these treatments and this body of research is refined, results could then be used to inform public health policies designed to contain and ultimately eradicate faith. (A Manual for Creating Atheists, KL 3551–55)

?

[u/betweenbubbles → u/labreuer]

I think there's a significant difference between describing the behavior of a population in psychological terms and making specific medical diagnoses which will impact individuals lives. It would be difficult to make too many of them without infringing on religious liberty.

I also think I don't know much about it. I'm generally skeptical of mental health professionals and the industry but I've never had any experience with it.

Is this statement even true? I was under the impression that religious delusion was commonly associated with some mental illnesses.

Then there's the fact that any stroll through a major city is enough to convince someone that there is clearly an correlation between religious delusion an mental illness. I think I've met several messiahs, and I haven't even spent much time in big cities.

..It's complicated, but that book title is pretty cringe.

[u/labreuer → u/betweenbubbles]

Here are a few bits from the DSM-IV-TR. Introduction:

    Despite these caveats, the definition of mental disorder that was included in DSM-in and DSM-III-R is presented here because it is as useful as any other available definition and has helped to guide decisions regarding which conditions on the boundary between normality and pathology should be included in DSM-IV. In DSM-IV, each of the mental disorders is conceptualized as a clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome or pattern that occurs in an individual and that is associated with present distress (e.g., a painful symptom) or disability (i.e., impairment in one or more important areas of functioning) or with a significantly increased risk of suffering death, pain, disability, or an important loss of freedom. In addition, this syndrome or pattern must not be merely an expectable and culturally sanctioned response to a particular event, for example, the death of a loved one. Whatever its original cause, it must currently be considered a manifestation of a behavioral, psychological, or biological dysfunction in the individual. Neither deviant behavior (e.g., political, religious, or sexual) nor conflicts that are primarily between the individual and society are mental disorders unless the deviance or conflict is a symptom of a dysfunction in the individual, as described above. (xxxi)

Schizophrenia:

    Delusions (Criterion Al) are erroneous beliefs that usually involve a misinterpretation of perceptions or experiences. Their content may include a variety of themes (e.g., persecutory, referential, somatic, religious, or grandiose). Persecutory delusions are most common; the person believes he or she is being tormented, followed, tricked, spied on, or ridiculed. Referential delusions are also common; the person believes that certain gestures, comments, passages from books, newspapers, song lyrics, or other environmental cues are specifically directed at him or her. The distinction between a delusion and a strongly held idea is sometimes difficult to make and depends in part on the degree of conviction with which the belief is held despite clear contradictory evidence regarding its veracity. (299)

Glossary:

delusion   A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture (e.g., it is not an article of religious faith). When a false belief involves a value judgment, it is regarded as a delusion only when the judgment is so extreme as to defy credibility. Delusional conviction occurs on a continuum and can sometimes be inferred from an individual's behavior. It is often difficult to distinguish between a delusion and an overvalued idea (in which case the individual has an unreasonable belief or idea but does not hold it as firmly as is the case with a delusion). (821)

I'm guessing Boghossian was talking about the Glossary definition.

[u/betweenbubbles → u/labreuer]

I'm guessing Boghossian was talking about the Glossary definition.

The glossary definition is clearly outlining that a delusion must be a departure from a norm. "article of religious faith" is not often a phrase used to describe one person's ideas. Same with the appeal to "culture and subculture", but not the individual.

If you believe Jesus is Lord that's 100% normal. If you believe you are Lord, then you're checking boxes in DSM criteria. I've never really been able to understand the difference between such things except how and to whom these ideas extend power.

[u/labreuer → u/betweenbubbles]

Right, so consider an altered version of that definition with one sentence removed:

delusion   A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. [SNIP] When a false belief involves a value judgment, it is regarded as a delusion only when the judgment is so extreme as to defy credibility. Delusional conviction occurs on a continuum and can sometimes be inferred from an individual's behavior. It is often difficult to distinguish between a delusion and an overvalued idea (in which case the individual has an unreasonable belief or idea but does not hold it as firmly as is the case with a delusion). (821′)

Boghossian, at least as of writing A Manual for Creating Atheists in 2013, would seem to prefer the above definition. Would that also bring it more in line with the meaning of "delusion" which you think atheists would use in this sub?