It escaped the definition of a delusion in the medical sense because they were classifying disorders.  If you're milling around in a crowd full of similarly deluded people, your delusion is unlikely to lead to maladaptive behaviors or outcomes - you will experience social inclusion, rather than exclusion or isolation.  It won't be an issue in your life.

(August 31, 2018 at 9:01 am)Khemikal Wrote: See, I actually like spinoza...but I have a novel take.  The man was trolling the religious when trolling the religious was still an offense punishable by summary execution, lol.

Yes, and his trolling was delightful.

But also, I think he did revere nature with the same enthusiasm (or possibly even more) with which theists venerate their gods. So reading him as "ice cold materialism" is a centimeter or two off the mark as well.

I don't know -any- ice cold materialists.  Spinoza (and I ), I think,  would agree that the sense of the numinous is, yet again, a sense of the interconnectedness of all things in nature.  It's very real, but misattributed to fairies.

(August 31, 2018 at 8:57 am)robvalue Wrote: I wouldn’t call a generic belief in a creator a delusion. I’d call it an unfounded belief. 

How about talking to someone who isn't there, asking him to find you a parking spot, and then when you find a parking spot, crediting this supposed being for giving it to you?

Would that qualify as a delusion?

Nah, that's good and just Christian Piety, friend. 

(August 31, 2018 at 9:16 am)vulcanlogician Wrote:

(August 31, 2018 at 8:57 am)robvalue Wrote: I wouldn’t call a generic belief in a creator a delusion. I’d call it an unfounded belief. 

How about talking to someone who isn't there, asking him to find you a parking spot, and then when you find a parking spot, crediting this supposed being for giving it to you?

Would that qualify as a delusion?

This seems to presuppose that God is not there. Which again would be a claim which needs to be substantiated.

No one has to presuppose it, for thousands of years it was the dominant position that there was a god, - a dryad in every tree..... turns out that he got awful squirrelly, and became suddenly difficult to find as soon as we knew how to look in everything and everywhere he was supposed to be.

I'll note again, that your defense of the delusion boils down to "it's twooo..it's twooo..it's weally twoo" - but regardless of whether or not there is a god -your- beliefs are still delusional.

(August 31, 2018 at 9:01 am)Khemikal Wrote: See, I actually like spinoza...but I have a novel take.  The man was trolling the religious when trolling the religious was still an offense punishable by summary execution, lol.

In a more academic tone, his place in time necessitated and leads to a stronger connection to the idea of gods and theism than would be warranted or present if he dropped his metaphysics on our heads today.  In sum, he considered nature to be metaphysically ultimate.  That all properties and qualities assigned to a god (and everything else) were, in actuality, properties of nature.  What has all known and possible attributes?  Why..nature does.  If there is only one substance what is that substance?  Nature.  What are all known and possible things a part and piece of?  Nature again.

This didn't escape his contemporaries - they called him an atheist for a reason.

Yes. If there is *any* sort of theism that makes any sense, it is pantheism: identify the universe as God. The problem, as I said, is that this seems to shift the definition of 'God' so much it has little link with the usual concept (however poorly defined it is).

---

(August 31, 2018 at 9:30 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(August 31, 2018 at 9:16 am)vulcanlogician Wrote: How about talking to someone who isn't there, asking him to find you a parking spot, and then when you find a parking spot, crediting this supposed being for giving it to you?

Would that qualify as a delusion?

This seems to presuppose that God is not there.  Which again would be a claim which needs to be substantiated.

Please prove there are no invisible gnomes and unicorns in my garden that make my garden grow.

I doubt that spinoza (or anyone else) would classify it as theism if it were contemporary rather than historical (in that sense his critics were right).  In any case, divorced from it's association with gods it does seem trivially true, if true.  

The universe exists, the qualities and properties of things in the universe are, ultimately, properties of the universe.  It's akin to saying;

"Here's a rock, rocks exist, hardness is a property of rocks" - if rocks, ofc, were metaphysicaly ultimate - the header to which all subsets belong. 

The only thing I, personally, find irksome about pantheism..is the tendency of a pantheist (or person playing devils advocate) to use pantheism to walk back ludicrous god claims..and from that point of seeming rationality (or comparative rationality), begin to reattach the godly baggage. I tell them that yes, I agree that the universe exists, and I also know that it's not a god.

(August 31, 2018 at 9:27 am)Khemikal Wrote: Nah, that's good and just Christian Piety, friend. 

. . . after all, we can't prove that the available parking space wasn't merely a question of fortunate timing. It might have been part of a plan. Maybe the good lord really wanted to save me the trouble of walking an extra few blocks. Or maybe it's all part of something bigger that I can't fathom. Who knows how many souls may have come to Christ as a result of that seemingly insignificant parking space?

When gods flap their wings, big things can happen.