Talk:Religious delusion

Problems

Too many paragraphs of this page start out 'in one study...' or equivalent. I added an extra citation to one such paragraph; often these claims are verified in multiple papers.

I'm not sure what the introductory text should be like, tho I did change it around. Seems like it ought to mention the chief differences that make religious delusions a bit of a distinct thing. I'd say "Religious delusions differ in the way they interact with culture", but I don't have a citation and that's a really vague statement. Dranorter (talk) 23:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The first paragraph makes mention of research on religious delusions that focuses on 'chemical imbalances in the brain'. Is there a reference available for this? Whilst the whole idea of 'chemical imbalances' in psychosis may itself be something of an overvalued idea in psychiatry, I'm not aware of any that makes a specific connection with religious delusion. Also the 'either-or'-type statement in this first paragraph is a bit odd - it's not as if the only 2 options are a) all religion is delusion, b) some religious beliefs are delusional when they are a function of chemical imbalance. Chemical imbalance has, after all, never been the criterion of delusionality, even if sometimes it is its cause. 2.27.220.6 (talk) 09:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I removed the "chemical imbalance" claim, which is not cited. (plus, "chemical imbalance" is one of the most incorrect scientific models of all time). The intro is too short now, but it's still better than before.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 02:28, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Copy editing done in 2015

Completed a copy edit as requested by the "copy-edit" tag from December 2013. —Molly-in-md (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Non-clinical Content and Focus on Western Religions

A good portion of this article has nothing to do with the psychological conditions and reads more like an attack on religious figures rather than an encyclopedia article covering actual traumas and a class of disorders some people suffer from. Likewise it will unnecessarily offend those with religious beliefs as it does not even try to separate out the two aspects. The parts of the "Clinical Examples" section have nothing to do with clinical cases at all and are nothing more than scholars speculating in a manner that seems more meant to discredit the religious claims of believers than it is to cite the true scope and nature of the variety of forms that religious delusions can take on. Given all of this I have added dispute on this article's neutrality.

Additionally most if not all of the discussion on this page deals with Christianity or branches thereof with some mentions of Judaism, this does not cite anything about how these disorders express in other religions and the methods employed regarding these for the above religions are against religious figures within the faiths rather than about how psychological disorder can manifest with regards to individuals who prescribe to these belief systems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.47.11.146 (talk • contribs)

I don't know who wrote the above, but I agree with your points. Especially: the "clinical examples" were not even remotely clinical. I changed "clinical examples" to "historical figures" and removed the POV tag accordingly. I think the main problem is now just that the article is extremely bad.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 02:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)