Tom Reynolds, the British owner of a blog named Random Acts of Reality, has written a couple of books that give readers a glimpse into his life as a paramedic. I’m currently reading More Blood, More Sweat and Another Cup of Tea, the sequel to Blood, Sweat and Tea (which I haven’t read). When I picked up the book, I didn’t realize that Reynolds was an atheist. I was just interested in reading tales of his life as an ambulance driver. My niece is an ER nurse, so I’ve heard and read more than a few bizarre tales about people in medical distress and sometimes find them entertaining. I thought you might be interested in some bits from a chapter entitled, “Possession.”
Every so often we get sent to ‘person behaving strangely,’ sometimes this is an adult and sometimes it is a child. When we reach the patient we are told, with a straight face nonetheless, that the patient is possessed by ancestors/spirits/demons.
Despite being an evangelical atheist, I have to take this sort of thing seriously. There is however a problem – our training guidelines pull us in two directions.
Direction one: we should respect the culture and traditions of our patients.
Direction two: we should never collude with, or reinforce the delusions, of someone who is psychotic.
(Psychosis is defined as ‘irrational beliefs not shared by the patient’s traditions or culture’.)
You can see the problem that we have….
I’ve been to a teenage girl who was ‘protected’ from demons by some wall hangings, but they might have found a way through and this was what was making her sick.
I’ve been to a mother who was channelling spirits in order to drive out the evil ancestors plaguing her daughter (who, unsurprisingly perhaps, had mental health issues).
I’ve been to members of an evangelical Christian cult who were trying to drive evil spirits out of their elderly relative by throwing salt at them [sic]….
So where do I stand? Do I respect the culture and agree that ‘yes, it might be demons’, or do I not reinforce their delusions by reminding them that a urine infection can cause similar symptoms? More importantly, where does madness end and religion begin?
Some questions to think about:
- What do you think about the notion of evangelical atheism?
- How does the behavior Reynolds described here compare with such practices as deliverance and witch hunting?
- What is your opinion of the definition of “psychosis” Reynolds provides?
If you don’t like any of those questions, just do what you always do and comment about whatever strikes your fancy.
– the chaplain
PhillyChief
June 24, 2010 at 11:46 pm
Evangelical atheism is silly. Evangelical rationalism is a different story.
I don’t know why they bother calling an EMT if they supposedly know what the problem is. They should be calling their priest/pastor/witch doctor.
His definition of psychosis falls victim to argumentum ad populum.
the chaplain
June 25, 2010 at 3:16 pm
Philly:
I agree with all your points. His quick and dirty, or abbreviated, definition of “psychosis” is problematic: majority, not reality, rules.
hippieprof
June 25, 2010 at 5:18 pm
I would agree that there are problems with the definition he offers – but they aren’t his problems. He is citing the industry standard.
Definitions of mental illness generally include both a statistical and an adaptive component. Statistical, in the sense that to be considered abnormal it must differ from what the average person does. But, care must be taken here – a genius is indeed abnormal by that standard. So, the second part is adaptive – or perhaps maladaptive. To be considered “mental illness” it also must interfere with your ability to function normally.
For example, someone who is exceptionally neat is statistically abnormal. But, as long as they can keep it under control and it does not rule their lives, it would not be considered mental illness. When it gets to the point of dominating their lives – so that their neatness overcomes their ability to write – then it becomes mental illness (in this case, probably OCD).
This method of defining mental illness is not without its problems – but believe me that there are other problems associated with alternative definitions.
hippieprof
June 25, 2010 at 5:20 pm
wow – Freudian slip or something – I meant “when neatness overcomes their ability to function.”
Postman
June 28, 2010 at 3:00 pm
As is often the case; agreed. Though I kind of think “Evangelical Atheist” sounds like a real ass-kicker. He has a mountain-man beard and a skull tattoo on his bulging forearm that says, “Kill ‘Em All and Let Nothing Sort ‘Em Out”.
paediatricDoctor
June 25, 2010 at 12:24 am
When he defines psychosis he is defining delusional psychosis (rather than hallucinations) and he is pretty much spot on with the definition.
“The most recent Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders defines a delusion as:
A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everybody 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. ” (sited from wikipedia)
his definition omits that the belief needs to be fixed/non-falsifiable, but is otherwise consistent with medical understanding/definition of delusion. Whats the issue?
re: evangelical atheism
he doesnt seem particularly evangelical about his atheism!
the chaplain
June 25, 2010 at 3:18 pm
The issue is that his omission is more than a minor oversight, to put it mildly.
desertscope
June 25, 2010 at 7:00 am
1. I always assumed the word “evangelical” meant “possessing a fabulous bouffant hairdo.” As such, I assume an evangelical atheist is simply one who does not believe in gods, but has a special fondness for hairstyles from the Grand Ol’ Opry and Kim Jong Il.
2. I am not sure how the experiences of Reynolds relate to Ned Beatty’s ass and Sean Hannity’s obsession with Hillary Clinton.
3. I think Reynolds just modified Carl Sagan’s definition of a cult (it’s in The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, but I’m thousands of miles from my home, so I can’t grab it for the quote).
the chaplain
June 25, 2010 at 3:21 pm
1. Is the relationship between weird hairdos and evangelicalism causal or correlative?
2. Maybe Sean Hannity thinks Ned Beatty’s ass is Hillary’s.
3. I’ll wait for you to get to your copy of Sagan – I gave mine to a friend I’m evangelizing.
PhillyChief
June 25, 2010 at 8:08 am
“Evangelical” can be used to simply denote a zeal for something where you not just sing its praises but actively try to convince others to adopt it. In the 90s, a lot of software companies referred to their salespeople as evangelists. I remember getting business cards from guys at conventions that read “Evangelist” as their job title. I believe the term has fallen out of favor for software companies, but I could be wrong.
Probably to no one’s surprise, I locked horns with many of those clowns. Their plan, naturally, was to play the us vs them game and whip up a religious fervor over their product which often would blind people to the product’s shortcomings or make them believe, without a doubt, that those shortcoming would be resolved any day now. I was banned from several forums because the natives would riot whenever I made a fuss about something not working right (especially after updates and new versions).
Heather
June 25, 2010 at 11:32 am
“What is your opinion of the definition of “psychosis” Reynolds provides?” I know this is the technical definition but I hate it.. and I think it’s BS. Why? because this definition hides so much mental illness. So many people never get diagnosed or treated because of this definition. A friend of mine, as a child, could see and hear things.. sometimes good, sometimes horrible and frightening.. her parents, evangelical christians.. were convinced she could see angels and demons and told her it was a gift from god. She was later hospitalized for anorexia as a symptom of bipolar disorder… later she tried to jump out a window because she thought she could fly.
I was Pagan for almost a decade because the people around me, my pagan church, etc, reinforced my delusions and hallucinations and I was also later diagnosed with bipolar- the end of my religiosity as I now understood the “ghosts” I could see and hear.
I believe, as an atheist, he’s obligated to help these people and ignore the religious BS that helps no one. I only wish I’d had someone to explain my experiences rationally and I know other mentally ill patients with the same experience. “Respecting” cultural beliefs can kill.
hippieprof
June 25, 2010 at 11:54 am
Heather, one of the standard components of a diagnosis of mental illness includes the degree to which it interferes with the ability to function normally. Hence, if somebody can claim to see angels yet still live a relatively normal life, they would not be considered mentally ill. In the case you are citing, though, it indeed looks like in was interfering with the child’s normal functioning.
the chaplain
June 25, 2010 at 3:26 pm
Heather:
Thanks for a personal look at the matter. Definitions, theories, worldviews and all of those things matter because they affect how people live their lives and respond to each other.
hippieprof
June 25, 2010 at 11:51 am
Professionally I am a Psychologist, so the definition of “psychosis” is relatively accurate. It generally refers to a break with reality – such that the patient is experiencing a reality that the rest of us apparently don’t share. This is in contrast to neurosis, in which psychological problems interfere with normal functioning but do not include a break from reality (depression would be an example).
Generally, psychosis and neurosis are older terms that have fallen out of favor in the literature, but it is still useful as a general descriptor.
I see the term “evangelical atheist” first and foremost as a humorous play on words. But, evangelical Christians in general feel the need to convert people to Christianity. I assume he is saying he finds a need to convert people to atheist – which would be why he sees a conflict between his atheism and his professional responsibility to respect other cultures.
Heather
June 25, 2010 at 12:53 pm
hippiprof, whether or not it interferes with one’s life it’s still a mental illness. It’s still a hallucination, it’s still a delusion, when you are talking to angels and demons- even if she had never tried to fly. My hallucinations also never interfered with my life (other than making me religious), but that doesn’t make them normal. Should we really ignore these types of things just because the voices aren’t telling me to kill my family? Because I can live with them? I understand the technical differences for the purpose of diagnosis.. but I’m saying I disagree with them.. I think that all symptoms of mental illness need to be treated and dealt with.. not just the ones that are so severe we can’t push them to the back of our minds and ignore them.
noen
July 1, 2010 at 12:07 pm
It is inappropriate to tell other people how they should live their life.
“Should we really ignore these types of things just because the voices aren’t telling me to kill my family?”
Yes, you really should. If it doesn’t otherwise interfere with their lives you should keep out and mind your own business. The only time it would be appropriate is if the person asks you for help or wants your input. People who run around telling other people how to run their lives are universally despised. In fact, I would say that if you feel you need to tell other people that what they think and believe is wrong and demand that they conform to your own ideas then I’d say you are the one with the problem, not them.
“I think that all symptoms of mental illness need to be treated and dealt with.”
It wrong to treat someone against their will. It is usually a good idea when proposing a universal rule to stop and think about what might happen if you were on the other end. The golden rule applies here. If you don’t want other people judging your beliefs you probably should run around judging theirs.
PhillyChief
July 1, 2010 at 3:58 pm
You’re asserting an absolute, but I don’t see it as an absolute. Yes, it may be inappropriate to tell people they shouldn’t eat meat or wear pants that are two sizes too big (or too small) but if someone’s actions are potentially harmful to themselves, you may want to say something, and certainly if their actions are harmful to others, especially children, then I’d say it’s quite appropriate. Same goes for mental illness. If you’re a potential danger to others, then your will be damned, treatment should be compulsory.
noen
July 1, 2010 at 5:32 pm
“You’re asserting an absolute”
No, I’m not. I’m just talking like a normal human being and I am fully aware of all the circumstances under which it is both moral and legal to intervene in someone’s life. As a rule however what I say is correct.
“If you’re a potential danger to others, then your will be damned, treatment should be compulsory.”
Fortunately I live in a democracy and not the former USSR where people were forcibly imprisoned and treated as though mentally ill for the crime of not being an atheistic materialist. I don’t want that happening here and one would hope you don’t either but the tone of the comments here seem to sliding over to Totalitarianism.
You see, once people decide that religious belief is mental illness it’s just a skip and a hop to the Gulags.
PhillyChief
July 1, 2010 at 7:42 pm
Is “I’m talking like a normal human being” supposed to be some kind of pass for talking shit? You’re pontificating, and then when called out on something, then you’re supposed to get a pass? No, sorry, it doesn’t work like that. “It is inappropriate to tell other people how they should live their life” is an absolute assertion. I didn’t see an asterisk with a footnote saying it wasn’t.
As for your irrational fear of Big Brother, well, that hardly warrants a response.
noen
July 1, 2010 at 8:03 pm
““It is inappropriate to tell other people how they should live their life” is an absolute assertion. I didn’t see an asterisk with a footnote saying it wasn’t.”
No, it isn’t an absolute assertion and this isn’t a juried academic journal. Weez jes folks talkin’. So when a normal human being says something like “you really shouldn’t try to tell other people how to live” all the other conditions when you should intervene are understood but remain unstated. They constitute what is called “the background” (look it up). Language is like that, there is a vast background of assumed knowledge that is left unstated. That’s why AI researchers have had so much trouble with natural language programming.
PhillyChief
July 2, 2010 at 8:10 am
Ah, see we’re used to more intelligent conversations here rather just typing for the sake of typing. In case you’re unfamiliar with what that’s like, it’s where considerable thought occurs prior to commenting and then others respond to your comments. Poor arguments are naturally challenged, and that’s for everyone’s benefit, including the commentor, because you wouldn’t want to try and use a poor argument again in the future, right? Well, unless you were jes talkin’, I guess.
PhillyChief
June 25, 2010 at 1:02 pm
Again, the problem is with the subjectivity of “normal”. If everyone is batshit crazy, then that makes anyone who’s not psychotic. That’s crazy!
hippieprof
June 25, 2010 at 1:12 pm
This is an absolutely classic article on the “Myth of Mental Illness.” It is 50 years old now, but still quite insightful. Here is a line from the concluding paragraph that may ring true on this blog:
“I have tried to show that the notion of mental illness has outlived whatever usefulness it might have had and that it now functions merely as a· convenient myth. As such, it is a true heir to religious myths in general, and to the belief in witchcraft in particular; the role of all these belief-systems was to act as social tranquilizers, thus encouraging the hope that mastery of certain specific problems may be achieved by means of substitutive (symbolic-magical) operations. ”
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Szasz/myth.htm
Heather
June 25, 2010 at 2:04 pm
The opening line plainly states that the article seeks to make a case that mental illness does not exist, but before I invest my time in reading an article that is sure to upset me, please tell me, that as a psychologist hippieprof, that you believe in mental illness?
hippieprof
June 25, 2010 at 2:28 pm
Heather, yes indeed I do believe in mental illness. In some cases it is very very clear. There are not too many people who would deny that schizophrenia was a true illness.
But, there are some cases that are very hard to define. Take homosexuality. It was, at one time, considered a mental illness. It is not considered to be anymore. Is it or isn’t it? The are arguments to be made on both sides.
PhillyChief
June 25, 2010 at 2:35 pm
By that awful definition, they would be, wouldn’t they? Teen angst could be a psychosis then too, right? Wouldn’t that be “experiencing a reality that the rest of us apparently don’t share”? What about those who need to get tattoos or body piercings? I find light beer repugnant, yet that’s a reality far from the mainstream. Hell, so is not needing to believe in a god, so does that mean I’ve got two pychoses?
hippieprof
June 25, 2010 at 2:47 pm
Philly, there is no doubt that defining mental illness is exceptionally difficult.
Teen angst, though certainly irrational (I know – I just had a very irrational conversation with my daughter less than an hour ago) doesn’t typically qualify for the “living in an alternative reality” criterion.
Hearing voices and other hallucinations, having paranoid delusions, delusions of grandeur, etc, are the type of thing we are talking about.
What is the difference? The true psychotic is unable to break out of the system. You can’t get them to deny the unreality of their world.
The angsty teenager is generally able to occasionally step back and realize he/she is being irrational. If the angsty teenager continues a pattern of unassailable irrationality over the long term, indeed a psychologist would start to wonder if something more serious was going on.
Religious belief is indeed an interesting realm. Simply believing in a god would not be taken as delusional – we believe in lots of things we can’t see. But, belief that the god is personally talking to you starts to push things. If someone started claiming that Martians were talking to him/her, it would most certainly be considered psychotic. If someone made the same conclusions about a god, probably not.
Curious, huh?
PhillyChief
June 25, 2010 at 2:53 pm
Well that reminds me of Sam Harris’ comment about W. Saying he communicates with his god is apparently not crazy. Saying he does through his hairdryer is. What’s the addition of a hairdryer got to do with it?
the chaplain
June 25, 2010 at 3:31 pm
hippieprof:
More like glaringly inconsistent.
Voss
June 25, 2010 at 1:12 pm
Philly Chief; I like your comment:
“Evangelical atheism is silly. Evangelical rationalism is a different story.”
The term “atheism,” like many negative decriptors, describes something that is not there (in this case, faith is not there). So combining the term evangelical with atheism doesn’t quite make sense. Rationalism, on the other hand describes something that is there (reason, skepticism). So evangelical would work well with rationalism.
the chaplain
June 25, 2010 at 3:39 pm
Evangelism works well with religion because it appeals to emotions rather than intellect. Also, many people are too lazy to think for themselves, so rationalism is unappealing to them – it requires hard work.
noen
July 1, 2010 at 12:14 pm
“The term “atheism,” like many negative decriptors, describes something that is not there”
I’m pretty sure that atheism exists. What the word atheism describes are those who make a negative claim about the existence of a God or gods. Atheism is not a lack of belief, that is what skepticism is.
PhillyChief
July 1, 2010 at 3:52 pm
No, atheism isn’t a claim about the existence of a god, it’s a refusal to accept any of the god claims currently in circulation.
Plus, atheism isn’t a “lack” of belief because we only lack what’s desirable. People don’t lack cancer, homelessness or a hole in the head, so atheists don’t lack belief in a god. We’re happily not afflicted with it.
noen
July 1, 2010 at 5:38 pm
“No, atheism isn’t a claim about the existence of a god”
Sure it is. That is what the word has always meant. An atheist is someone who denies that a God or gods exist. It is a propositional attitude.
“Plus, atheism isn’t a “lack” of belief because we only lack what’s desirable. People don’t lack cancer, homelessness or a hole in the head, so atheists don’t lack belief in a god.”
This is laughably bad. Please don’t try to tell me that atheism is not a claim about the existence of god and then turn around and try to say that belief in god is just like cancer.
PhillyChief
July 1, 2010 at 7:49 pm
I’m sorry, but that’s simply incorrect. Perhaps you should consult an atheist as to what atheism is rather than pontificating. Imagine if I were to tell a Christian what Christianity is and it wasn’t what they see it as. If I kept insisting I was right, that would be rather douchey of me, would it not be?
As for the second point, since atheists don’t value faith, saying we lack it is absurd. To us, it is like having cancer, only it’s curable. If you find it valuable, that’s fine, but know that not everyone does.
noen
July 1, 2010 at 8:21 pm
“I’m sorry, but that’s simply incorrect. Perhaps you should consult an atheist as to what atheism is rather than pontificating.”
I don’t need to, I have my handy dandy dictionary right here.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=atheist
“1570s, from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos “to deny the gods, godless,” from a- “without” + theos “a god” ”
–
“Imagine if I were to tell a Christian what Christianity is and it wasn’t what they see it as”
Christians don’t get to define themselves either. Mormons are Christians even though there are many Fundamentalists who would claim otherwise. They are wrong. Words have meanings. Neither you nor Christians nor anyone else gets to hijack words to advance one’s political agenda.
“If I kept insisting I was right, that would be rather douchey of me, would it not be?”
Socially yeah, it would, but this is the internet and a blog where one is expected to debate these issues. My position is that one needs to be rather firm about the meanings of words otherwise they become meaningless. But that is not absolute, there should always be some wiggle room. However I am not going to give you any, you need to argue for it.
“As for the second point, since atheists don’t value faith, saying we lack it is absurd.”
By far and away the most common self definition that atheists online give is that “Atheists lack belief” (faith). You seem to have not gotten the memo.
“To us, it is like having cancer, only it’s curable.”
This statement refutes your previous claim that atheism is “neutral”. Therefore I stand by my previous comments.
“If you find it valuable, that’s fine, but know that not everyone does.”
I’m aware of that. It’s my position that faith, which is the ability to act in the face of contradictory evidence, is indeed a valuable thing.
PhillyChief
July 2, 2010 at 8:45 am
First, dictionaries reflect common usage. The definition for atheism used to be “those who reject God”. I’m sure you can see how loaded a definition that was, however when society dictated, even more intensely than it does now, that everyone must believe in Yahweh, then that definition accurately reflected society’s usage. Today, dictionaries are doing better with it, but since they still work by reflecting common usage, they’re going to continue to be off as long as common understanding of atheism is off, and Christian advocates work very hard to ensure that the definition stays off because it’s far easier to fight and rally support against their straw man atheism than actual atheism.
Second, let’s go with your quoted definition of “without a god”. Perhaps you can fill in the blanks for me as to how that gets you to asserting that there isn’t a god. Certainly refusing to accept a god claim would leave you “without a god”, but that’s a long way from asserting that there is no god. To perhaps make it more clear for you, let’s see how this plays out in another context, our judicial system, specifically criminal justice. A prosecutor charges someone with a crime. That’s a claim. He then has to give warrants for accepting this claim, which would be the presentation of evidence. If the warrant is weak, is the defendant declared innocent? No, because that would be a counter claim which would require evidence. If the prosecutor can’t support his claim, then the defendant is declared not-guilty, in other words, without guilt. Sure, when people are “jes talkin’” they say that person is innocent or declared innocent, but that’s not exactly right, is it?
To your point on neutrality, you’ve confused some things again. I don’t know where you got the neutral thing to begin with, but if atheism somehow meant being neutral on one thing, why would that then mean neutral on other things? Again, you have to connect the dots. Rational atheists (that being atheists who esteem logic, reason, and evidence, and who, in my experience, comprise the majority of atheists) naturally aren’t going to be neutral on rationality. They’re going to be opposed to irrationalities like faith based beliefs such as beliefs in gods, the power of crystals, and how you’re going to be rich after helping that nice Nigerian prince who emailed you.
And finally, yes, there are unfortunately atheists who say they lack belief. It’s a fabulous example of cultural conditioning, much like saying “god bless you” when someone sneezes. Think about how many phrases you say without thought in any given day. Personally, for the longest time I thought “pique your interest” was “peak you interest”.
Gesundheit
Joel Wheeler
June 25, 2010 at 2:13 pm
to PhillyChief: I work in production for direct marketing campaigns. Autodesk is one of our clients and they still send out email blasts for webinars featuring “AutoCAD Evangelist” so-and-so. It ain’t over yet!
PhillyChief
June 25, 2010 at 2:26 pm
Ah! Well it’s been awhile since I’ve been to SIGGRAPH, and I’m not going this year, so I’m away from the front lines, although the CAD world is a a separate world unto itself.
Larry Wallberg
June 25, 2010 at 2:57 pm
Just do what you always do and comment about whatever strikes your fancy.
The picture looks like Steve Carrell.
Oh, and the author sounds like he’s full of shit.
the chaplain
June 25, 2010 at 3:34 pm
Larry:
Are you implying that Steve Carrell is full of shit?
Proud Kuffar
June 27, 2010 at 12:05 pm
Godbots are psychotic. Tis that simple.