Religion Or Delusion?
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
MORRIS.DOC 2/12/2020 10:35 AM View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of San Diego “God Told Me to Kill”: Religion or Delusion? GRANT H. MORRIS* ANSAR HAROUN, M.D.** TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 974 II. DEFINING RELIGION ........................................................................................... 978 A. Religion in the United States: Historical Development ........................... 978 B. Religion and the Supreme Court .............................................................. 980 III. REGULATING THE CONDUCT OF RELIGIOUS BELIEVERS ...................................... 985 A. Introduction ............................................................................................. 985 B. Defining Religious Belief ......................................................................... 986 C. Applying the Religious Belief Requirement to Those Commanded by God to Kill ........................................................... 988 D. Beyond Belief: Defining the Free Exercise of Religion ............................ 992 IV. RELIGION AS DELUSION: DEIFIC DECREE AS INSANITY ....................................... 997 A. Defining Insanity as the Inability to Distinguish Good (Right) from Evil (Wrong) .............................................................. 997 B. The Deific Decree Doctrine ................................................................... 1002 1. Historical Development .................................................................. 1002 2. The Doctrine Denounced and Defended ......................................... 1012 * Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law; Clinical Professor, Department of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, University of California, San Diego. The author would like to thank Mary Loeb for her invaluable research assistance. He would also like to thank the University of San Diego for providing financial support to this project. ** Supervising Forensic Psychiatrist, San Diego Superior Court; Clinical Professor of Psychiatry and Pediatrics, Department of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, University of California, San Diego; Adjunct Professor, University of San Diego School of Law. 973 MORRIS.DOC 2/12/2020 10:35 AM V. DEFINING DELUSION ........................................................................................ 1019 A. Nineteenth Century Definition ............................................................... 1019 B. The DSM................................................................................................ 1022 C. The DSM-IV Definition of Delusion and Its Critique .................................................................................................. 1025 D. The Distinction Between Bizarre and Nonbizarre Delusions ............................................................................................... 1030 VI. DIVINING DELUSION: DENYING THE DEIFIC DECREE? ....................................... 1035 A. Religious Beliefs as Delusions: In Theory ............................................. 1035 B. Religious Beliefs as Delusions: In Practice ........................................... 1038 C. Redefining Delusion ............................................................................... 1040 1. Dr. Manfred Spitzer’s Proposal ...................................................... 1040 2. Our Proposal .................................................................................. 1042 a. Distinguishing Clinical from Forensic Evaluations .............................................................................. 1042 b. The Proof of Falsity Requirement ............................................ 1043 c. The Definition of Religion and the Exclusion of Religion as a Delusion ........................................ 1045 d. Rejecting or Reformulating the Deific Decree Defense ........................................................................ 1047 VII. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................... 1049 I. INTRODUCTION When Abraham took his knife and prepared to slay Isaac, Abraham was responding to God’s order to do so.1 To pass the supreme test of faith, Abraham was required to unconditionally surrender to God’s directive that he sacrifice his only son.2 1. The story of the binding of Isaac, known as the Akedah, is told in Genesis 22:1–18. For a retelling of the story in a twentieth century context, see Norval Morris, Ake Dah, 52 U. CHI. L. REV. 553 (1985). In Morris’s story, however, both the colonial police officer who narrates the story and the examining psychiatrist believe that the father’s attempted murder of his son resulted from the accused’s mental illness. Id. at 587. If tried, the accused would be found not guilty by reason of insanity. Id. at 583. The colonial police officer in Morris’s story is named Blair and he serves in the Moulmein District of colonial Burma. Our colleague, Maimon Schwarzschild, informs us that British author George Orwell’s real name was Eric Arthur Blair, and that, as a young man, he actually served in the Moulmein District of colonial Burma as an assistant district superintendent in the Indian Imperial Police. 8 THE NEW ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA 1019–20 (15th ed. 1998). Morris never openly identifies his narrator as Orwell. 2. Isaac was not killed, and the order to sacrifice him was given only to test the strength of Abraham’s belief in God. Human sacrifice is antithetical to Jewish belief. In the book of Deuteronomy, the ancient Israelites were instructed not to act as did the Canaanites, “for every abomination to the LORD, which He hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters do they burn in the fire to their gods.” Deuteronomy 12:31; see also Deuteronomy 18:10 (instructing: “There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire”). 974 MORRIS.DOC 2/12/2020 10:35 AM [VOL. 38: 973, 2001] “God Told Me to Kill” SAN DIEGO LAW REVIEW Sigmund Freud, however, would have interpreted the Biblical story differently. There was no command to sacrifice Isaac, he would have asserted, because there was no God to issue the command. As a scientist,3 Freud believed that “there is no other source of knowledge of the universe, but the intellectual manipulation of carefully verified observations, in fact, what is called research, and that no knowledge can be obtained from revelation, intuition or inspiration.”4 Thus, to Freud, religion was illusion5—the unjustified fulfillment of emotional wishes not grounded on scientific research or knowledge.6 Freud characterized religion as the universal obsessional neurosis of humanity; like the obsessional neurosis of children, it arose out of the Oedipus complex, out of the relation to the father. If, on the one hand, religion brings with it obsessional restrictions, exactly as an individual obsessional neurosis does, on the other hand it comprises a system of wishful illusions together with a disavowal of reality, such as we find in an isolated form nowhere else but in amentia, in a state of blissful hallucinatory confusion.7 But Freud was not present to challenge Abraham’s decision to bind Isaac for sacrifice or to question whether Abraham was responding to 3. According to Freud, psychoanalysis contributed to science by extending research to the human mind. SIGMUND FREUD, A Philosophy of Life, Lecture XXXV, in NEW INTRODUCTORY LECTURES ON PSYCHO-ANALYSIS 217–18 (W.J.H. Sprott trans., 1933). 4. Id. at 217. 5. Id. at 239. Karl Marx also agreed that religion is an illusion, a product of the human imagination. Religion is “the sigh of the distressed creature, the soul of a heartless world, as it is also the spirit of a spiritless condition. It is the opium of the people.” KARL MARX, ON RELIGION xx (Saul K. Padover ed. & trans., 1974). Despite their agreement on this issue, Freud questioned whether Marxism, at least as embodied by Russian Bolshevism, was a true social science. Freud noted that the Communists had established a ban upon thought, which is as inexorable as was formerly that of religion. All critical examination of the Marxist theory is forbidden; doubts of its validity are as vindictively punished as heresy once was by the Catholic Church. The works of Marx, as the source of revelation, have taken the place of the Bible and the Koran, although they are no freer from contradictions and obscurities than these earlier holy books. FREUD, supra note 3, at 245–46. 6. FREUD, supra note 3, at 218. Freud asserted: “Religion is an attempt to get control over the sensory world, in which we are placed, by means of the wish-world, which we have developed inside us as a result of biological and psychological necessities. But it cannot achieve its end.” Id. at 229. 7. SIGMUND FREUD, THE FUTURE OF AN ILLUSION 43 (James Strachey ed. & trans., W.W. Norton & Co. 1961) (1927). Freud also cautioned that if religious belief is equated with knowledge, it “would open the door which gives access to the region of the psychoses, whether individual or group psychoses.” FREUD, supra note 3, at 218. 975 MORRIS.DOC 2/12/2020 10:35 AM illusion or hallucinatory confusion rather than a command from the Almighty. And even if the father of psychiatry had been there, he is not likely to have persuaded the father of monotheism to resist—or even to question—what