Let's see, what is psychosis, according to dictionary.com

1.a mental disorder characterized by symptoms, such as delusions or hallucinations, that indicate impaired contact with reality.


and what is delusion:
4.Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact:


So, why is it that some resist the idea that religion is a form of psychosis?

Why is religion in any way different from a case where a person believes he is being followed by CIA or aliens, when in fact he is not.


The key part in definition of psychosis is "loss of contact with reality".
It goes to that extend that a person with psychosis has difficulties interacting with healthy people, which is exactly
what is happening in contacts between atheists and religious people.
Often religion causes severe social disfunctionality , unless when in company of other religious people.


Should religion (theism in general) be treated with therapy, or even medications (in cases of extreme cases, like hardcore preachers who see miracles),

Well I would say if your flying planes into buildings or abusing your kids in the name of religion you have a pychosis. There are many things in the Universe for which we have no explaination, sometimes it falls into the realm of a religion.

Well these are extreme cases, which should , religion or not, be locked up for safety of society, but I mean just theism without it being a direct danger.

you know, sometimes a psychotic person is no danger to others, but society offers treatment anyway...

Oh boy, here we go again. We've done this topic before...

Thanks, I'll be declining treatment for my psychosis.

Well nobody would force you unless you are a danger.
I'm not the one who believes in force-treatments, I'm just dealing with definitions here, and question whether treatment should be offered and readily available to people who are theists

At "worst," religion has developed as a response to humanity's desire to understand the big picture questions of life. At "best" it is a response to forces which are real, and have a real effect on the physical world, including humanity, but which as yet remain outside our scientific understanding. Thus, supernatural occurences with a "religious" aspect and paranormal, which may be very similar but without a religious component.

At "worst" religions offer some wisdom distilled and codified over many years of human experience. At "best" they reflect humanity's attempt to interpret and utilise actual laws and rules for good governance and social conduct, handed down by an entity with a form of physical existence.

To answer your question more specifically.

If god is real, then belief/knowledge of his existence is neither a psychosis (because it is not in conflict with reality), nor a delusion (because it is not in confrontation with the facts)

Given the fact that only a limited number of people claim contact with deities, or their avatars ( including angels) the first assumption might be that there is a common reality that gods do not exist, and thus people who believe in them are indeed psychotic or deluded.

This however presupposes the point that those limited numbers of people may indeed have experienced real events, with measurable outcomes, which are not shared, for what ever reasons, with those who only experience the common reality.

Although limited in its usefulness, one analogy might be the descriptions given of Australian flora and fauna by early european explorers. The first point is that these people could rarely accurately describe, or draw, either plants or animals because of their eurocentric mindsets. For decades most illustrations of Australian landscapes resembled european ones. Second, even when some detached artists managed to present reasonably accurate representations of australian animals, most europeans thought they could not be real and that they were products of the artists imagination.

Admittedly the analogy breaks down, because the plants and animals were eventually brought "home" , and became part of the common reality. However, it is not impossible that eventually, with advances in technology, we will also be able to bring home to the common reality, the existence of many things at present considered products of the imagination.

I can only argue from my personal experiences, but from what I have read, these fall in an historical and contemporary context of what might be considered "contact" with realities that exist out side of those verifiable by current scientific knowledge. However, when assessed by scientific method, or logical and rational deduction, many of these events cannot be hallucinations, and do interact with elements of the "real world".

I will accept that at the moment they fall into the category of inexplicable, but this does not make them less real, any more than a mobile phone would be unreal if you took it back 500 years . It would not work because of the lack of satellites etc, but even the battery powered functions would create a reality which would probably see you burned as a witch, or any descriptions of the phone and its abilities regarded as miracles. It would be inexplicable to people of that time. Not just the technology, but the purpose of it, would be almost impossible for them to comprehend.

And if the reality actually exists, for even one person, then none of those people who believe in it without experiencing the reality, be it platypus, mobile phone, or an entity commonly known as god, are either suffering from a psychosis; nor are they deluded. At worst they are accepting the existence of something, not personally experienced, on faith, and we all do this, every day of our lives.

Personally I would like to see much more work being done to expand the commonly held parameters of reality, and to teach more people to widen their perspectives and potentialities. This would lessen the social dysfunctionality a lot more effectively, and ethically, than medicating those who experience a wider reality than that which is commonly perceived.

And just for the record, I have not touched any mind altering substances, including alcohol, for 35 years, and do not recommend them. The evidence is that they do indeed create a reality which exists nowhere, outside of the individual's mind.

If anything, a mind freed from such influences must have a truer perception of objective reality, all other things being equal.

The inverse to this is, sadly, perhaps also true. Medication may not just prevent hallucinations, but also affect that part of the mind which facilitates contact with a wider perception of reality.

There are many characteristics that seperate mankind from the other species on this planet. I've often stated that we have not been able to totally know our true potential on a spiritual level. There are "things" of this Earth and beyond that we are just not privy to.

These commonly held "parameters of reality" you speak of is exactly what holds us back.

I'm of the opinion that religion in some cases restricts a person from achieving these "potentialities". In the sense that religious adherents claim to have all the answers in regards to spirituality, powers of man, energies that exist in the universe, so on and so on

Once a person is told all the answers are given, for example in the Bible, they cease to search for answers. Yet we see that there are many many questions to be answered. So any claim otherwise is premature, and in some cases extremely irresponsible.

I never thought that religion was a psychosis but after joining this forum UM and reading some of the more extreme views ,I begin to think about it having some merit



fullywired

No, religion is not a form of psychosis, it is a set of believes and rituals, no more no less.

What causes the psychosis is the uncritical following of the believes and the unwittingly exercise of the rituals. Religion is only marginally to blame for that.