What now? By Derek Cantrell The following are excerpts from the DSM IV, and revisions in the DSM 5: DSM IV “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.” DSM 5 “Delusions are fixed beliefs that are not amenable to change in light of conflicting evidence. Their content may include a variety of themes (e.g. persecutory, referential, somatic, religious, grandiose).[…] Delusions are deemed bizarre if they are clearly implausible and not understandable to same-culture peers and do not derive from ordinary life experiences. […] 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 or reasonable contradictory evidence regarding its veracity.” Note that the DSM IV gave pardon to religious belief, as it notes that a delusion is not accepted by the person’s culture or subculture. This implies that if a belief is in harmony with the culture’s religion, it is exempt from the label of delusion. A quick read over the revised classification from the DSM 5, labels religious beliefs as a category, or theme of delusion. The DSM 5, was published in 2013, and is the current standard used in Psychology today.
I believe this to be a monumental advancement in the scientific world, as well as of notable importance to the mass population. I won’t pretend that I’m not appalled at the level of freedom, this particular theme of delusion has been given. I understand that humanity is forever emerging from a state of ignorance, but religion has long worn out its welcome among those of us who strive for knowledge and understanding, while accepting our lack of such things. For thousands of years, humanity believed the world to be flat. When Galileo challenged this belief, he was threatened by the Christian church. When Galileo’s challenge was proven as a scientific fact, there were initially countless individuals who refused to acknowledge the scientific find. As the idea of a round globe approached the status of common knowledge, it was still opposed by some. One of the last to accept this knowledge were Christians as it challenged the idea that their god created everything in the universe to revolve around arrogant man and his planet. I expect no less Christian resistance of the current DSM label. Fortunately scientific method is impervious to Ashe Conformity. With that being said, I propose the following: Our laws should begin to reflect this new knowledge in a variety of ways. Considering the vast amounts of inhumanities and irrationalities enforced by Christianity, we should conclude that the indoctrination of such atrocities to highly impressionable children, constitutes no less than child abuse. Children are highly sensitive to stimuli, and have yet to develop a resistance to complex indoctrination promoted by the Christian religion. Children are also highly influenced by those in positions of authority, such as parents, teachers, etc. As children we also have a predisposition to learn through mimicking, not only physically, but psychologically as well, therefore the belief in scientifically disproven histories, and irrational deity behavior, is often transferred from parent to child. Another primary demand is the taxation of Christian churches. These churches have long promoted the irrational beliefs depicted in the bible, such as talking snakes, supernatural impregnation, eternal, torture for non-conformists and various promotions of racism, slavery, sexism and rape. Christians have also been allowed to base, defend and justify their actions on such beliefs. A close look at the bible reveals the claim and support of a supernatural deity who claims eternal love for mankind, while simultaneously claiming that this
loving deity commits genocide by drowning the entire population, save a man named Noah, and a few friends, and also kills the first born son of every Egyptian family, at one point in time. Not only is the belief in such a deity preposterous, but the believers are also taught to emulate this deity, as he is without sin. While Christians will probably attempt to provide the Constitution’s freedom of religion as a pardon or exemption, we must note that amendments have been made to the Constitution in light of obvious controversies with the livelihood and promotion of humanity. For example: We have the right to bear arms, but convicted rapists, murderers and pedophiles are prohibited from owning firearms, for obvious reasons. We have the freedom of speech, but one who yells fire in a public place, is subject to legal prosecution, due to the fact that such actions often incite riots, mass panic etc. Christians claim that snakes once spoke, the whole globe once flooded, humans once lived seven or eight hundred years, a supernatural deity created women inferior to men, and refusal to comply with their rubbish, results in eternal torture. I think this more than qualifies as material that could incite riots or mass panic. While the belief in general theism is scientifically plausible, the belief in material that can be scientifically disproven, is nothing more than delusion, and there is no rational reason that our Constitution should condone, promote, or protect those who encourage and endorse mass panic, rape, infanticide or radically, irrational behavior of any kind. It most definitely should not promote tax exemption for such individuals, groups or establishments. The final way I’ll discuss, that our laws should reflect this DSM recognized label is to demand the withdrawal of Christianity and irrational religious influence in arguments for or against various discussions in our current political system, such as abortion, material taught in public school history and science, gay marriage etc. The purpose of government is to promote the efficient survival of its population. The infiltration of religious irrationality demotes and hinders the progressive actions of government officials. Accountability must be managed by scientific method and principles. For example: The mass public reacted to rumors of Iraq’s WMDs the same as the mass public reacted to rumors of witchcraft being conducted by American citizens over two-hundred years ago. Both instances resulted in unnecessary inhumanities including severe psychological abuse, physical violence and killing. No one was named as the C.I.A. agent or team that promoted the false data, so there was no
one held accountable for the genocide of over one million Iraqi citizens, when there were no WMDs found. In order to conduct war, we, as the mass population, must be able to conclude that the target is a threat. If we aren’t allowed to review the classified top secret information, we must have specific names of the person(s), who promote(s) the target as a threat, so that if the information is found to be inaccurate after genocide is committed, the person(s) who promoted war can then be challenged to explain their thoughts and actions in a court, and be judged by their peers, as to determine if the person(s) are responsible for acts of treason. I would definitely label inciting a riot that led to genocide, to be an act of treason, and I’m willing to bet that most sensible people would agree. While arguments may be made that revealing C.I.A. identities put the agents at risk, I would counter with: If our military industrial complex is capable of committing genocide, it should be quite capable of protecting the above mentioned agents. To imply that the U.S. military cannot protect one, or a small handful of agents, also leads me to question how the fifty billion dollar a year organization can defend our vast borders. Perhaps we should have closer examinations of how that money is spent, and debate whether our current military system is the best way to spend fifty billion dollars. There are countless other categories and concerns that could be challenged, by the DSM 5’s new understanding and labeling, but I think these two are definitely immediate places to start. Many times throughout history, science has brought discomfort to the masses, such as the fore-mentioned Galileo challenge. While it may have offered more comfort to promote the continuation of a flat Earth, how much Astrophysical and Geological knowledge would have been hindered at the expense of comfort? Sciences including Psychology, seek to explain the world, not control it. There is enough turmoil, genocide, war and segregation throughout the world, due to religion. These controlling forces hinder the progression of humanity and should be expelled from our lives. We wouldn’t want a wonderful experience of an ocean cruise to be hindered by the fear of falling off of the edge of the Earth. We would want our internet access, trade and education hindered by the lack of knowledge of various populations on the other side of our planet. To currently promote the idea of a flat planet and the insistence of falling off the edge should you venture too far, is laughable at best. You would probably be forced to either
be institutionalized and/ or medicated. Now what’s this I hear about a talking snake?