Talk:Delusion

This is

This is a very well-done and fascinating article. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:38 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

- Thanks! Vaughan

A false belief?

Firstly, well done. However, I am somewhat unhappy with one aspect of this article. For me it is the quality of the way the belief is held that is paramount. The belief does not have to be false. This is discussed in the article but I cannot see an acceptance in the article that a delusional belief may be true from the outset and yet still delusional. Let me give an example to clarify what I mean. A man with delusional jealousy about his wife presents and describes his concerns that his wife is unfaithful. He has the classic features. He presents clearly psychotic reasoning for his justifications, e.g. stains on her underwear are proof, her occasional looks outside the window are to see if her lover is there. You interview the wife and find that she had a brief affair a year before the onset of the husband's condition but there is no way that he could know about this. True his belief is of an ongoing affair and you could say that therefore his belief is false, but let's extend it and consider the case where the wife IS having an affair. The husband though is clearly psychotic in the way that he holds the belief. Now, one way to test this is to say it is the fixity of the belief but I do take the points in the article on this subject. I am afraid though in practice that this is probably the main deciding factor for me and many other psychiatrists I know. But how to express this in an article? --CloudSurfer 07:07, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Since writing the above I have had a look at one of the references given in the article. I do not have access to the full article but it would appear from the abstract that it is dealing with the issue above. --CloudSurfer 05:24, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hi there CloudSurfer,

The initial sentence describes delusions as false beliefs as this is the everyday definition of a delusion. It then goes on to discuss the psychiatric definition which although currently does include the criterion of a delusional belief being false (as per the current DSM definition), it also requires that the belief be held in a certain way (again as outlined in the article).

In terms of your point about delusional jealousy, I think the following paragraph covers this quite well:

In other situations the delusion may turn out to be true belief. For example, delusional jealousy, where a person believes that their partner is being unfaithful (and may even follow then into the bathroom believing them to be seeing their lover even during the briefest of partings) may result in the faithful partner being driven to infidelity by the constant and unreasonable strain put on them by their delusional spouse. In this case the delusion does not cease to be a delusion, because the content later turns out to be true.

However, I agree it could be clearer in explaining a belief may be true from the the start and still be diagnosed as delusional. However, as the diagnostic criteria for a delusion are at best, confused, and at worst, incoherent, meaning there is no adequate final definition (as the Spitzer article makes clear).

- Vaughan 08:22, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Many religious beliefs hold exactly the same features, yet are not considered delusional." --- POV and not even accurate. Many atheists and others consider religious beliefs to be delusional. And Nietzsche said, of faith: "...a casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." --195.93.21.98 02:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Whole books could be written on this issue. It is very difficult to identify which of our beliefs are actually justified. Is an unjustified belief necessariy delusional? Does a delusional belief have to be harmful in some way to earn the epithet?

Examples

1. I believe God exists

- as an atheist I would say this belief is unjustified by the evidence. But is it harmful? Is it delusional?

2. I believe I can fly unassisted

- again an unjustified belief (though it can only be disproven by experiment!). Most people would call it delusional. Does it matter, though, as long as one doesn't attempt to act on the belief and try to fly off a cliff?

It should be pointed out that belief (1) can cause also people to do extremely dangerous things - hijack planes and fly them into buildings, launch crusades, persecute heretics. The same could be said of some political beliefs - that one's nation is a master race, or that violent revolution is necessary to obtain a just society.

3. I believe my partner/parent/child loves me

Again, this might be unjustified by the evidence. If so is it delusional? Might we depend on such unjustified beliefs such as this for our mental and emotional wellbeing?

No answers there I'm afraid. Which makes me wonder whether a "delusion" can be defined in terms other than subjective judgements.

Exile 21:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

How about this for a definition of delusion: "Delusion: A mental factor that arises from inappropriate attention and functions to make the mind unpeaceful and uncontrolled. There are three main delusions: ignorance, desirous attachment and anger. From these arise all the other delusions, such as jealousy, pride, and deluded doubt." p 197, "The New Meditation Handbook", Geshe Kelsang Gyatso ISBN 0948006 91 9 Link to Amazon re "The New Meditation Handbook"--Raymm 04:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Similarly, it has always troubled me that a person could walk into a hospital and say "I saw demons yesterday" and immediately be committed to the psychiatric unit, but in many churches, the same statement would not be unusual. Kat, Queen of Typos 01:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I find Buddhist thinking about delusions puts an interesting light on these comments. I.e., as I understand Buddhism, it teaches that my tendency to think I'm really quite important (self-cherishing) is a delusion that leads to suffering by encouraging selfish behavior. Even further, as I understand Buddhism, it teaches that I have a tendency to believe that a situation or object or person, or any mental event, has an inherent nature, which makes it difficult to consider alternative explanations. Then Buddhism goes on to teach antidotes (love (intention to increase other's happiness); compassion (intention to reduce other's suffering)) to these delusions and replaces the suffering caused by the delusions with more pleasant states of mind. This cross-pollination seems most interesting to me. Anyone else?--Raymm 03:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Knowing the delusion

We've all heard the axiom "crazy people don't think they're crazy". Is this untrue? Is it possible to have delusional thoughts, while knowing they're delusional? Example: if a person believed there was some unseen or unknown external intervention in their life (i.e. god, fate, aliens), but knew it was impossible.

What about contradicting beliefs, e.g. every potential mate they meet is in love with them and that they are not good enough for every potential mate or that they wouldn't want to be with them? Would that be considered to be delusional?

Just a couple of things I've been curious about.

Many things that we can not see and can not touch are true. e.g pain, love, soul, etc.

   Knowing About Delusions from the Inside Out Rather Than Just Observed Behavior

I experienced a drug induced psychosis thirty-some years ago. I was able to with part of myself know what I was thinking may not be true, but the thoughts and feelings were so overwhelming it was hard to do anything more than ride out the psychosis. I did this by separating myself from the old environment, moving, and putting myself under house arrest. This was with a little outside help, and a lot of taking responsibility for my situation and hope that I would recover.

It is hard to for people who are suffering with delusions to do much more than to try to be opened minded. Delusions often appear to be deeply rooted. I know this from personal experience and working in Mental Health for the last 15 years. I think it wise to breach the subject that a delusion may be a false belief with a small amount of truth, but not belabor the notion.

I think it is importation to understand that delusions can be like a great wave that "rolls over the mind and engulfs it.” In my experience part of my thinking process understood the delusions I was having and how there was no “real proof” to back them up, but they were still overwhelming and the motivation of many of my thoughts and some actions.

take, for example, the classic instance of a person who thinks their thoughts can be heard by those around them - it's nonsensical! questions arise: would _i_ be able to hear _their_ thoughts? not necessarily. guess i better watch what i think. step further: they know my secrets and *must* know that i know; maybe the room going quiet as a thought private passes by is proof, but that's irrational, and yet, ultimately undeniable. the hold is unshakable. on some level, in some way, what cannot be, is. so what could cause this? a dread-inducing, cold-sweat-forcing fear of judgement, another example of the irrational? ultimately, would a person holding such beliefs want to stick around when not even his own mind is a haven from the judgement to which they irrationally, uncontrollably, and naturally overreact? maybe they speak very loudly the names of the ones who can hear in their mind to witness no reaction, and do so again in intervals expected to bewilder, to elicit a surprise reaction - only to fail. the delusion loses a lot of pull in the decisions and thought processes of the individual, but ready for the next delusional phase is the fact that the ones you're attempting to fool could once again be a step ahead, aware beforehand of your shouting ploy.

also, the perceived lack of privacy and implied negativity towards the self due to perceived, obsessive judgement could go a long way in explaining the personality loss commonly associated with schizophrenia, or at least, a cause. sorry for the rant.--Nod 08:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I find Buddhist thinking about delusions puts an interesting light on these comments. I.e., as I understand Buddhism, it teaches that my tendency to think I'm really quite important (self-cherishing) is a delusion that leads to suffering by encouraging selfish behavior. Even further, as I understand Buddhism, it teaches that I have a tendency to believe that a situation or object or person, or any mental event, has an inherent nature, which makes it difficult to consider alternative explanations. Then Buddhism goes on to teach antidotes (love (intention to increase other's happiness); compassion (intention to reduce other's suffering)) to these delusions and replaces the suffering caused by the delusions with more pleasant states of mind. This cross-pollination seems most interesting to me. Anyone else?--Raymm 03:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Religious faith excluded?

Is it really excluded from the definition by psychologists? Is this a contentious issue within the field of psychology? Is the person who added that statement to the article delusional?

NSWelshman 12:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Robertson Panel

In the article Robertson Panel it mentions that shrinks are used to "reduce" interest in UFOs, aliens. Someone sued the CIA under the FOIA and got the information for the Robertson Panel, which it states that in a debunking campaign, psychiatrists are to be used, along with the media, and to spy on all UFO/alien organizations and groups. Martial Law 07:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC) :)

Since the docs are used, thus explains the "delusions" used to insult and ridicule people who have had these experiences as persuant to the Robertson Panel and Project Grudge protocol. Martial Law 08:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC) :)

Can this one be explained ? Martial Law 08:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC) :)

Animals inside of him??

"...and now realises that this person was laughing because the man has animals living inside him"...what does that mean? Figurative or his own delusion of animals? Le Anh-Huy 09:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I second that, is this subtle vandalism? I'm going to move that sec to talk pending citation. - FrancisTyers ·

Primary and secondary delusions

Jaspers originally made a distinction between primary and secondary delusions.

According to Jaspers, primary delusions (sometimes called true delusions) are distinguished by a transformation of meaning, so that the world, or aspects of it, are interpreted in a radically different way by the delusional person. To others, this interpretation is 'un-understandable' in terms of the normal mental causality, mood, environmental influences and other psychological or psychopathological factors. Jaspers describes four types of primary delusion:

1. delusional intuition - where delusions arrive 'out of the blue', without external cause.
2. delusional perception - where a normal perception is interpreted with delusional meaning. For example, a person sees a red car and thinks that this means the person's food is being poisoned by the police.
3. delusional atmosphere - where the world seems subtly altered, uncanny, portentous or sinister. This resolves into a delusion, usually in a revelatory fashion, which seems to explain the unusual feeling of anticipation.
4. delusional memory - where a delusional belief is based upon the recall of memory or false memory for a past experience. For example, a man recalls seeing a woman laughing at the bus stop several weeks ago and now realises that this person was laughing because the man has animals living inside him.

Secondary delusions (sometimes called delusion-like ideas) are considered to be, at least in principle, understandable in the context of a person's life history, personality, mood state or presence of other psychopathology. For example, a person becomes depressed, suffers very low mood and self-esteem, and subsequently believes he or she is responsible for some terrible crime which he or she did not commit.

Possible Edits re: "Unfalsifiability", "Falsity", "Diagnostic issues", etc.

Re:

"Delusions do not necessarily have to be false or 'incorrect inferences about external reality' [2]. Some religious or spiritual beliefs (such as 'I believe in the existence of God') including those diagnosed as delusional, by their nature may not be falsifiable, and hence cannot be described as false or incorrect [3]."

What does the term 'unfalsifiable' mean, here? If it means necessarily true, then it is true that such a belief "cannot be described as false", but that God exists would hardly seem to be an example. If it means cannot be shown to be false, then that God exists might be an example (depending upon what God is conceived to be), but I see no reason to say that such beliefs "cannot be described as false or incorrect": it need not be the case that all falsehoods can be shown to be false. Perhaps the intent was to say that such beliefs cannot be known to be false (which is true if a belief must be capable of being shown to be false in order to be known to be false).

Re:

"In other cases, the delusion may be assumed to be false by doctor or psychiatrist assessing the belief, because it seems to be unlikely, bizarre or held with excessive conviction. Psychiatrists rarely have the time or resources to check the validity of a person’s claims leading to some true beliefs to be erroneously classified as delusional [5]. This is known as the Martha Mitchell effect, after the wife of the attorney general who alleged that illegal activity was taking place in the White House. At the time her claims were thought to be signs of mental illness, and only after the Watergate scandal broke was she proved right (and hence sane)."

This paragraph presupposes that delusional beliefs must be false despite the fact that the two immediately preceding paragraphs were aimed at showing that delusional beliefs can be true (and succeed in that aim, I think). If it is intended that the paragraph not imply that delusional beliefs must be false, then '...leading to some true beliefs to be erroneously classified as delusional...' could be changed to '...leading to some beliefs being erroneously classified as delusional...', and '...only after the Watergate scandal broke was she proved right (and hence sane)...' could be changed to either '...only after the Watergate scandal broke was she proved right, which made it seem unlikely that her allegations evinced mental illness...' or '...which made it plausible that her allegations were well grounded...'.

Moreover, since the paragraph is about the erroneous classification of beliefs as delusional, '...the delusion may be assumed to be false...' would be better rendered as '...a belief may be assumed to be delusional...'.

Finally, the entire section entitled "Diagnostic issues" seems to suffer from a failure to adequately distinguish between the following distinct issues:

(1) Whether the proposed definition succeeds in capturing all and only the cases of delusional belief in some "intuitive" sense of 'delusional belief'. (The notion that there are "counterexamples" to a definition presupposes that there is a pre-existing concept of which the definition is supposed to be an articulation.)

(2) Whether the proposed definition defines a condition which is unacceptably susceptible of misdiagnosis.

Perhaps these two issues ought to be treated in two separate sections. Hemlock 22:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Grammatical error?

99.234.95.84 (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)people do not know the difference between delusions illusions, hallucinations and when lay people are looking to wiki for a general idea of what's what- - relatives confused by bizarre behaviour could really benefits from a list of clear examples --when to recognize that nightmares are not really happening- this is not a question for a social worker it is a brain disease.99.234.95.84 (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Popular Hollywood films such as The Soloist and A Beautiful Mind provide true stories from the lives of patients and their families.99.234.95.84 (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

LIST OF popular books = Crazy-a father's story --man does break and enter to take a bubble bath; children's books called iristhedragon in perth ontario canada; book "i am not sick" by dr.... 99.234.95.84 (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

"Some religious or spiritual beliefs (such as 'I believe in the existence of God') of some, including those diagnosed as delusional, by their nature may not be falsifiable, and hence cannot be described as false or incorrect."

Of some, the words I emboldened, are not in the article, but I think they should be because the sentence doesn't make sense without them. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, or correct the page if it's wrong.

>>>>PoidLover

I tried to reword the sentence and I think it is grammatically correct now.--DorisH 13:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Idea of delusions in Buddhist teachings

Delusions are an important element in Buddhism. I was surprised there was no reference to the idea of Buddhist delusions in this article. Would it be appropriate to add this? --Raymm 16:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard that before. What would you use as a citation?--DorisHノート 17:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, this might take me a little while, but I'll get you something authoritative for you to consider. --Raymm 03:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 02:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok,re "What would you use as a citation?

For example: "Delusion: A mental factor that arises from inappropriate attention and functions to make the mind unpeaceful and uncontrolled. There are three main delusions: ignorance, desirous attachment and anger. From these arise all the other delusions, such as jealousy, pride, and deluded doubt." p 197, "The New Meditation Handbook", Geshe Kelsang Gyatso ISBN 0948006 91 9 Link to Amazon re "The New Meditation Handbook"--Raymm 16:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd be more interested in knowing about a scientist's view of what a delusion is rather than a philosopher's view. 207.237.41.202 (talk) 22:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Beliefs

Is believening a certain religion or conspiracy theory "delusional"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.165.91 (talk) 01:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It depends not on what is believed in, but in how many people believe it. Something cannot be delusional if it is accepted in society (this is by the definition of delusion), even if there is strong/solid evidence directly against it. For example you could say that taken individually, a religious person would match the definition of delusion if they were the only person of that religion left. Also by the same logic, many founders of religions are therefore delusional, as at the time only themselves and perhaps a couple of followers believed in them.--Dacium 02:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Some conspiracy theories would not be delusional - for example, the Watergate Scandal to Martha Beall Mitchell. But some - for example, the 9/11 "no planes" conspiracy theory - would be. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 15:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If a falsehood is believed true by few, it is called delusion. When believed by many, it is called religion.Final Philosopher (talk) 19:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

A contradiction?

I am not an expert in this, but I am wondering about the sentence "In psychiatry, the definition is necessarily more precise and implies that the belief is pathological (the result of an illness or illness process)." As far as I know the "illness" where delusions are most important is schizophrenia. But in the criteria for schizophrenia in the DSM or ICD one of the main things that constitute the diagnoses is delusion. So if having a delusion is part of the criteria FOR a schizophrenic illness, then having a mental illness can`t be a necesary thing to decide whether something is a delusion or not. It would be a circle in the argument. Can anyone explain? Geomatix2 (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Kuhn, Oversimplification

In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn suggested a number of things about the modern scientific community, but the statement "scientists can hold strong beliefs in scientific theories despite considerable apparent discrepancies with experimental evidence" never appears in any form. Kuhn's argument consisted mainly in showing that scientific revolutions are generally revolutions of perspective; questions and whole classes of answers change value. In Kuhn's view, anomalies in the body of experimental data are taken by the scientific community as a challenge to stretch the current paradigm to fit the anomaly until someone comes along with a more elegant paradigm. Though both paradigms may be able to account for the anomaly, the elegance with which the new paradigm handles the anomaly has usually been the deciding factor.

Besides this, Kuhn took issue with what was (before his time) a common error among science historians, namely the application of the term "science" to work done before science became a distinct discipline.

In this light, the sentence about Kuhn doesn't even belong in this article. Kuhn never had anything to say about the difference between scientific theory and delusion; the sentence in the article suggests that the difference is in some sense tenuous. See the articles on The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions and Thomas_S._Kuhn for more details. --A3soggetti (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed: the sentence seems totally out of place in this article. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I'm proposing that Causes of schizophrenia#Development of specific delusions be moved in this article because the topics discussed there are not specific to schizophrenia, but apply to delusions in general. Xasodfuih (talk) 12:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Agree - this section should be moved there (and checked, but it is late here and I need to sleep - too fatigued to read now....) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Why not instead, rename the article "Causes of delusions"?
  

and link it to this and other articles? --Bouleau (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

This seems a good alternative as the article does mention schizophrenia specifically and keeping all sz information together makes sense too. Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 19:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Actually I hadn't noticed how informative this article is with its full list of delusional types, it should be very helpful for those with a diagnosis. I don't think it should be incorporated into the article on schizophrenia because of the many different ways delusions can come about it deserves its' own space. Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I went to merge the section in question into this article. It definitely didn't belong in an article on the causes of schizophrenia, but I didn't see anything that warranted inclusion in this article.. Much of the text didn't provide any meaningful content, was poorly written, and was likely original research. Dgf32 (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

deleted known examples section

I deleted this section because these are not good examples.

Seattle Windshield Pitting Epidemic - a mass delusion, not a good example of a typical delusion

Religion, as argued by Richard Dawkins - does not meet the criteria for delusion, religion is par of a socially accepted norm, not a fixed belief. Earlypsychosis (talk) 08:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

agree. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, people with religious beliefs can sometimes reason out other ideas and change their beliefs when they are presented with a good argument or convincing evidence. It's this possibility of voluntary change in thought that rules out believers in god/religion as delusional. People experiencing psychotic delusions are locked into their beliefs and are just not able believe otherwise unless there are some neurochemical changes taking place. --Roastporkbun (talk) 06:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

capgras

what about the capgras delusion? needs to be added as another type? Earlypsychosis (talk) 08:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I see it has its own article here but think it still needs mention as it own category ?? Earlypsychosis (talk) 09:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

regardless of your POV a persons faith beliefs are not delusions

removed this content today from religious delusion types This is debatable based on whether or not you are religious. From an atheist point of view any religious belief could be considered delusional as by definition religious beliefs are not delusions for a number of reasons. For example, they are within social norms of belief held by a persons peers and secondly dont hold all the qualities required (those with religious ideas can usually enterain or see the perpectives of others and acknowledge the faith aspects of their belief). Happy to debate on talk page but above comment did not cite any source. Earlypsychosis (talk) 05:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Erotomania and "people of a higher status"

I'd like to find more concrete data on this idea that patients with erotomania "often" experience their delusions regarding those of a "higher status". In my experience, someone with erotomania can perceive that anyone is in love with him or her. That the secret admirer is "often" of a higher status...I think the only reason why this phrase has been repeated so many times is because of the high-publicity cases of erotomania involving celebrities. However, there are even more cases of "ordinary" erotomania that takes place every day -- the perceived "secret admirer" can be quite random and does not have to be someone of a higher status. The admirer might the repairman, a neighbor, and in some cases even one's own family member. If you've ever observed anyone with psychosis you know that delusional onsets are often completely random, illogical, and have nothing to do with the sufferer's pre-onset personal beliefs or history. (Example, it's not likely that when someone has the delusion that the FBI is following him/her that there's some deep-seated meaning to that, or that the sufferer had some kind of bad experience with law enforcement in the past. It's just a random delusion. Nothing more.) Furthermore, someone suffering from erotomania does not always necessarily "return" the "love".

All in all, there hasn't really been too much concrete, statistical research published about erotomania, and yet this idea of "the patient perceives that someone of a higher status" is in love with him/her keeps getting repeated everywhere... Roastporkbun (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting point. Need to check the refs on that one, but off the top of my head I don't recall the 'higher status' being a recognised feature in the literature. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Using plural pronouns to refer to singular nouns?

Re: Reverted edit -- 10 July 2009 75.2.132.12 (Used "they are" for gender neutral pronoun, long-time accepted English usage per Chicago Manual of Style and Wikipedia itself) (undo) (Used "they are" for gender neutral pronoun, long-time accepted English usage per Chicago Manual of Style and Wikipedia itself)

Is this correct? Does Wikipedia promote sentenes like, "a person may believe they are receiving special messages from newspaper headlines"? It sounds awfully wrong. I was always taught to use either "he/she/he or she", or simply change everything to "people may believe they are..."

I have never seen "they" used to refer to singular nouns in an effort to be gender-neutral. Roastporkbun (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Colloquially yes, but not in a medical article. I find its use a bit jarring here too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Specific Delusions

I have added this section which used to be written under causes of schizophrenia. The main criticisms were that it was poorly written and constituted original research. This version was from 2008 and edited by Eversince and is written better. Just checking WP's policy where X is a type of Y is used - amphetamine delusions are a type of delusion, culture is a type of cause of delusion... I will send the previous editors a short note. Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Religious and Scientific Theories

You know there can't be a subject of delusions without these two terms.

The ones that stick out are: Delusion of guilt or sin (or delusion of self-accusation), Erotomania and Religious delusion.

Complete BS. The first is feelings of guilt which all have. If it was feelings of guilt without cause toward a specific event, then it can be a delusion, but not when there's a constant feeling of guilt which can be from anything that hasn't been resolved yet in the mind. The second, Erotomania, isn't a delusion. If a person get confused about another person liking them, its not because their delusional, its respinding to singals. The third, Religious delusion, is from an Atheist's perspective which is one of the smaller belief(or rather disbelief) systems.

For example the phrase, "Beliefs that would be considered normal for an individual's religious or cultural background are not delusions." is something an Atheist would write to not offend. According to that idea, Scientology, the religion based upon a scifi book, shouldn't be considered a delusion. But they are delusions and false beliefs and should not be counted out based on ones feelings. It should be mentioned, and there is no reason not to add them. I purpose removing it and redefining "Religious Delusions".

The other delusions I added in the title are Scientific Theories, which seem to be the most perplex delusions. There are many absurd theories, including the "Dream Argument" and similar scientific propositions of Origins. For one, I don't think the belief of God should be categorized as a delusion because that would mean Love, Life, Good and Evil, Morality, Logic, and Reason should be considered delusions based on no purpose or proof of existence. The same could be said about "perception" since nothing is certain in the Atheistic belief of "Nothing to Something" ergo, "No Truth", "No Constant", "No Purpose", "No Meaning" and "No Supernatural". The latter negating Life, because there would be no sure way to prove it. Since I have never met a single person who didn't hold all these beliefs, it renders Atheism, the strictest sense that there is no God, obsolete. So it's odd this article fails to add Atheism, a disbelief rather than belief, making it non-religious, to the line up. I purpose adding it to the line up as well.

Any thoughts or additional reasons/disagreeable opinions please let me know. Mwarriorjsj7 (talk) 23:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

No, listing atheism as a delusion for no good reason would be clear POV-pushing, as would listing religion as a delusion. They are just ways of saying "I disagree with X", not informing the reader about delusion. MartinPoulter (talk) 08:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Delusions imply psychosis, which is also linked with hallucinations.

You can believe in "Love, Life, Good and Evil, Morality, Logic, and Reason" without believing in a god (or God). Buddhists are taught to be open to the concept of God/gods, but they don't necessarily have to believe.

"Delusion of guilt or sin (or delusion of self-accusation): This is a false feeling of remorse or guilt of delusional intensity. A person may, for example, believe they have committed some horrible crime and should be punished severely. Another example is a person who is convinced they are responsible for some disaster (such as fire, flood, or earthquake) with which there can be no possible connection." As another example, you could genuinely believe that you killed someone, when you didn't. Excessive guilt (when the events are factual) could be described as scrupulosity (religious OCD). An example of this could be praying for forgiveness after eating raw/uncooked meat by accident. The Bible states that blood is Holy (something on the lines of that), and should not be consumed. Scrupulosity is something entirely different from delusions of guilt or sin, however.

For Erotomania, "They believe that this other person was the first to declare his or her affection, often by special glances, signals, telepathy, or messages through the media." There's also a pretty big difference between love and romantic interest.

Essentially, religious delusions are senseless exaggerations (maybe someone claiming that Jesus is walking among us or Obama being the antichrist), and the same would go for nihilistic delusions (which is basically an extreme of atheism). If both atheism and religion in general were considered delusions, would that not make every living animal deluded? MichaelExe (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah. I get it. But I still think Religion and Atheism should be some form of delusions, seeing as their both based off of specific views, that both fail to meet Reality completely. As for what I mentioned about Life, Love, Good and Evil, Logic and Reason, you pretty much can't say they exist without God. Those are immaterial's and concepts, that have no meaning without God. Even if you rely on them without the belief of God(Atheism) you still have no account for them. Making them as meaningless as any concept.

And I don't think I'd classify us as animals but, I agree. All of us are pretty deluded, mixing truth with other views and creating "Theories" that never end. The Truth itself, in purity is almost unknown to us anyway, so even the closet person doesn't know all of it. Mwarriorjsj7 (talk) 22:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)