When is a Religious Belief Delusional?

[Whateverist]

Not if it's taken to be a political construct rather than an inherent or objective fact.  Moreover, even as an inherent or objective fact, it can be derived from the morals of fairness, that all should be treated as equal, regardless of any objective existence of such an equality.

Any notion of fairness already presupposes some measure existential equality. You're arguing in circles. Let's step further back. I believe there are moral facts. Are those delusions?

You could always be mistaken in your identification of the morals you identify as facts.  Thinking they are facts isn't in and of itself delusional, whether or not I choose to conceptualize morality in that way.

Do you think people who don't conceptualize morality as you do are delusional?

[Amarok]

Any notion of fairness already presupposes some measure existential equality. You're arguing in circles. Let's step further back. I believe there are moral facts. Are those delusions?

Nope but nor are they found outside of nature. Moral facts are natural facts .Your belief that they come from magic la la land however is a delusion

[Fake Messiah]

I believe there are moral facts. Are those delusions?

What the heck are moral facts and what do they have to do with god?

It is true that humans live under moral laws or guidelines. However, every society has its morality, but each is different. What is deemed good in one society is often deemed bad in another; for instance, killing is immoral in most societies (under most but not all circumstances), but head-hunting is or was a valuable and appropriate behavior in some societies. In other words, morality is not absolute or universal. So if you think (and most Christian Theists do) that morals are absoute they are not, but relative. Rather as Nietzsche stated: "There are altoghether no moral facts".

[polymath257]

From the tail end of another thread…


So I say, lets have that conversation.

Let me first say that, as a Christian, this is very difficult conversation to not take personally. ‘Delusion’ has a very negative connotation, even when used colloquially. For many Christians, and I suppose believers in general, their religious convictions are central to their identity and serve as the core around which their values and principles develop. Having it maligned is perceived as dismissive and disrespectful.

At the same time, sincere and thoughtful believers are very much aware that there are seriously disturbed people who truly believe supernatural entities have directed them to do dangerous and/or heinous acts (a mother drowning her three children in a bathtub because she thought they were demons, comes to mind). For a non-believer, to lump mainstream Christians in with people who are clearly mentally ill and failing to acknowledge various safe guards (that are by no means infallible) built into religious traditions, is at best IMHO thoughtless and at worst offensive and provocative.

So for the purposes of this conversation, I will assume that ‘delusion’ is being used moderately by atheists, not indicative of actual mental illness, but rather as something that hinders reasoning. As such, what criteria must be met for a belief to qualify as a delusion? Some I have heard some of the following proposed and with which I agree:

- Unquestionable certainty.
- Resistance to scrutiny.
- Contrary to what is demonstrably false.

That said, the devil is in the details. My initial question to atheists is this. How do you justify the claim that all religious beliefs, or those most commonly held, satisfy the above criteria (or others you may propose that are not listed)?

For believers, I also raise the issue of how one can examine one’s own beliefs and those of others to avoid the above criteria. I alluded to safe-guards commonly found within religious traditions. Some of those are as follows:

- The predictions of a prophet must be 100% accurate.
- If someone feels called by God to a specific course of action and it violates Scripture then it didn’t come from God.
- If a personal revelation contradicts the clear teaching of the tradition it is not valid.
- To the extent that the ‘inspired’ behavior seems extreme or overtly dangerous the more clearly it should align with Scriptural teachings. For example, missionary work can be very dangerous and may require great personal sacrifice and yet it is very clearly justified by the Great Commission.
- Is the belief motivated by sincere love and concern for others or does it appear grounded in fear or deny the humanity of others?

That’s all I have for now but I think it sufficient.

(Full disclosure, I will be away most of Labor Day weekend and will not directly participate initially. Nevertheless, I am very interested in what people have to say and seeing where the discussion leads in the first few days. In other word, don’t be surprised if I appear to have dropped-out entirely.)

RN here. The definition of delusion clinically is a fixed, irrational idea that is not shared by others. 

 "I am Harry Truman!" is an example of a delusion that I witnessed a person experiencing.

 " Jesus is King" is just a belief that millions share. 

I am trying to do mentally ill people a service by not associating their disease process to the bullshit perpetuated by religious people.

There is no restriction on delusions that they cannot be shared with others: (from Marriam-Webster)

Definition of delusion

1 a : something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated

• under the delusion that they will finish on schedule
  

• delusions of grandeur
  

b psychology : a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary

• the delusion that someone was out to hurt him
  

; also : the abnormal state marked by such beliefs

-------------------

Does this apply to religions? At the very least, it applies to beliefs in supernatural deities that affect day-to-day lives of people. Combined with the confabulation (called apologetics) that is typical of religion (and delusions), it is hard to see a way that most religions are NOT delusional.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Any notion of fairness already presupposes some measure existential equality. You're arguing in circles. Let's step further back. I believe there are moral facts. Are those delusions?

You could always be mistaken in your identification of the morals you identify as facts.  Thinking they are facts isn't in and of itself delusional, whether or not I choose to conceptualize morality in that way.

Do you think people who don't conceptualize morality as you do are delusional?

Not at all. I see only a difference of opinion. On this issue calling one’s own belief rational and the other delusional is nothing but offensive and arrogant hand-waving. My point is this. Beliefs formed from applying reason to common experience do not qualify as delusions. This applies to the existence of God as equally as it does to moral facts.

For example, to we all know that there are upstanding and good people. And although none of them are good in the same way; nevertheless, there seems to be an overarching concept of human goodness that unites them all. From there it is not too difficult to derive an overarching concept of goodness shared by both humans and non-human species. And from there it is not too difficult to conclude that there something like ‘The Good’ in which all good things participate and that this transcendent Good is real, in some ways perhaps more real than everyday reality.

This is by no means a clear-cut derivation but it was the conclusion made by Plato and adopted by many later pagan and Christian philosophers who call this God. They may indeed be mistaken. Most AF member seem to attribute the moral sense to some combination of animal instinct and social pragmatism. This is merely a difference of opinion between Plato. Plotinus, and Aquinas, among others and AF members. I see no justification for piling derision on people who hold opinions similar to some of the greatest thinkers of the past.

[robvalue]

Even if there were moral facts, why would I care about them? Nothing happens if I don't follow them (except God keeping score possibly, which I don't care about).

I'm not going to do something just because it's a "moral fact"; nor will I not do something because it's "factually immoral". I decide for myself what is moral, based on my judgement of real consequences, and the values I hold. Only a psycopath would need to be told what to think is moral or not. Everyone else has the ability to decide for themselves.

Moral facts implies factual values, and that's just a contradiction. You can use god's values, or some clever guy's values, or your hero's values, but ultimately you're making a choice to use that set of values. Why should I give a shit what God values? It's still his opinion at the end of the day.

[SteveII]

There is no restriction on delusions that they cannot be shared with others: (from Marriam-Webster)

Definition of delusion

1 a : something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated

• under the delusion that they will finish on schedule
  

• delusions of grandeur
  

b psychology : a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary

• the delusion that someone was out to hurt him
  

; also : the abnormal state marked by such beliefs

-------------------

Does this apply to religions? At the very least, it applies to beliefs in supernatural deities that affect day-to-day lives of people. Combined with the confabulation (called apologetics) that is typical of religion (and delusions), it is hard to see a way that most religions are NOT delusional.

Note the bold. Please provide a list of the "indisputable evidence" that there is no God. Absence such a list, such a belief by definition is not a delusion. Note that this is not merely "in spite of no evidence". It is in the face of indisputable evidence to the contrary. 

Even worse for your position is that you cannot even adequately undercut the evidence that people rely on for the religious beliefs. Who's delusional again?

[robvalue]

You know what's strange? Everyone who believes in "moral facts" just happens to know what those facts are, or knows the correct way to find them, and they always line up with their own opinions. What if they found out they were wrong about these facts? Would they then alter their opinion to line up with the correct facts? Don't think so.

Also, any two people who claim to know these facts can't agree on what they are besides a few really obvious ones that 99% of people would hold as their opinion anyway.

I'm proud to put forward my morals as my judgement. I'll defend them to anyone. How is it going to look defending your actions by saying, "I thought [so and so] wanted me to do it"? Especially if you find out that's not what they wanted you to do, after all.

[Angrboda]

Not if it's taken to be a political construct rather than an inherent or objective fact.  Moreover, even as an inherent or objective fact, it can be derived from the morals of fairness, that all should be treated as equal, regardless of any objective existence of such an equality.

Any notion of fairness already presupposes some measure existential equality. You're arguing in circles.

No, it does not. The notion of fairness creates an imperative to treat identical members consistently. That's a question of identity, not of inherent value. Do we have reason to believe that all humans share the identity of human independent of ideas that we should? Yes, we do. So it's not circular.

Let's step further back. I believe there are moral facts. Are those delusions?

I don't know. Are you saying that the existence of moral facts is similar to the existence of God, something we can impute to exist, but which is otherwise not capable of demonstration? I would debate that because moral facts aren't suggested to exist in the same sense, ontologically, as God is. We accept that numbers exist. Is the existence of numbers a delusion? I would probably have to say that moral facts are currently unexplained. Both moral realism and anti-realistic views on morals provide explanations which are not parallel to the idea of God as a reality. And many non-realist explanations can, in principle, be demonstrated.

[Pat Mustard]

Too bad no ones doing that 

I can make a thread filling it with examples of Atheists doing exactly this on these forums and it would be pages and pages of examples.

Do it then. But we both know that unless you lie through your teeth your thread will be empty. Becausewe both know that atheists dont pretend to be god.