How do psychiatrists define religious reality?

Question

Here I'm wondering about the definition of delusional thoughts and behaviour.
If a person has non religious delusions like "my head is falling off" or " I am a green alien with blood type z" a doctor can use empirical methods to check this out and prove beyond doubt delusion. The head is not falling off. The blood type is AR+. The skin is brown.
This is not the case with some religious delusions, for pertaining to supernatural events or properties, they are beyond empirical investigation and falsification by collected INDEPENDENT data.
Let's say someone believes that they are Jesus reincarnate. Another believes that they are a normal human reincarnate. The former is likely to be sectioned, and the latter not, as the latter is probably acceptable religious belief. However what evidence or knowledge or religious reality does a psychiatrist have to decide the case? Without turning to a bible or a priest, as that would be unprofessional, and allowing ordinary faiths in angels etc?

Majnun99 best answer so far, but why should one be expected to conform to anothers religion? Surely thats in the favour of the establishment and not the "patient"?

Answer 1

It depends on if the religous ideas are appropriate to one's own culture and religious group.

I work in mental health.

It's usually not necessary to look it up in the Bible (or whatever); there are enough places to read about the beliefs of pariticular religions on the Internet, etc. It's usually not hard to figure out if a certain practice is appropriate to that religion.

For example, people who go to the Pentecostal Church often "speak in tongues." That might look bizarre to people outside of the church but it is considered appropriate to someone who belongs to that church.

But if somebody says "I am God in the form of Elvis Presley" or "Jesus told me to kill those people", it's a pretty safe bet it's not an appropriate part of any real religion. Religious delusions are generally belonging to only one person, the guy who thinks he's Jesus probably won't have other people who believe he's Jesus.

I have never seen it personally, but if a person said he was God got a group of people to believe it, and formed a new church or something, the mental health community wouldn't necessarily force that person into treatment unless there was reason to believe he was a danger to himself or others.

It's not necessarily unprofessional to look it up in a Bible or ask a priest, though, if it's really necessary. I recall looking it up in a Bible when some patient was saying something about "Abbadon, the angel of the pit."

I personally belong to a minority religion, Once we had a patient who belonged to that religion and staff asked me questions about it just to check if what the guy was saying was true or if he was making it up.

My wife is a Hindu, and there was a period ten years ago where a bunch of Hindus were saying statues of the god Ganesh was drinking milk. It sounds insane, but some people in my wife's family say they have actually seen it. Since large numbers of Hindus said it was happening, I don't think it's fair to say it was delusional.

Answer 2

I would think he would face it with those empirical methods,
using collected indepedent data as you say.
a psychiatrist would not depend on religious beliefs in treating such a person, empirical data through his work, and data from others, at the risk of even putting Jesus in a
mental institution!, because thats how he would be treated today, if he was real, or made an appearance and claimed to be him. which fate would be worst?, if this was the case?

Answer 3

It was once that schizophrenia replaced into seen to be demonic possession, perfect up till the time that scientific technology proved it replaced right into a neuro-chemical subject. There are EEG readings that practice atypical techniques interest - if it replaced right into a 'religious' phenomena there could be no scientifically discernible indications. you may no longer have it the two techniques. the two the 'religious international' (alongside with 'god') is detectable or it incredibly is no longer, so people who nonetheless think of it incredibly is demonic possession in recent times the place it incredibly is declared that god isn't scientifically detectable (and consequently an EEG can no longer practice a spiritual phenomena) fail to understand no longer basically technology yet their faith besides.

Answer 4

What an interesting question.
I guess that psychology and the definition of "normal' depend on one's ability to interact with family/ friends and work colleagues, to live one's life in control of one's ego and interact appropriately. Not just an external observation of this but to be a constant assessor and moderator.
If someone professes to be Jesus but is quite obviously (to the 'masses') unable to appropriately interact with, for example, his/ her parents, partners or siblings, then there must be something 'wrong?!' This cannot be Jesus or another divinity because in their infinite wisdom would ultimately be love and understanding.
?