Abstract

Is it possible to distinguish between authentic religious faith in a miraculous cure and the psychiatric syndrome of denial in the face of serious illness? There are, of course, atheists who consider all religious beliefs delusional, and, therefore, would not accept the meaningfulness of the distinction. Many others, however, including some persons of faith, might still demur before undertaking such a task. They might, at first pass, think that the attempt to distinguish between genuine faith and psychological denial is either disrespectful toward the patient, intolerant, or an impossible task, given what is taken to be the inherently private nature of religious matters. For these critics, the notion that anyone other than the individual could make a judgment about the authenticity of the faith of another is itself morally offensive. What seems at first the morally correct response might seem to be, “How could one dare to question the authenticity of the religious views of another person?” Yet, such a view, upon careful analysis, is no less dismissive of the religious person than the view of the “hard-nosed” atheist. The assertion that it is impossible to distinguish authentic faith from a disordered psychiatric state could only be true if faith were taken to be at least functionally equivalent to a disordered psychiatric state. Such an assumption could hardly be construed as reflecting an attitude of respect for religious persons, or evidence of the kind of tolerance that ought to characterize a liberal polity. Therefore, contrary to many people’s initial impressions, it is deeply insulting to religious persons to suggest that expressions of belief in miracles cannot be questioned.