On Hell and Forgiveness

[SteveII]

For those claiming that theistic beliefs mean a person is delusional, I assume you realize that 17% of people world wide are non religious. Do you really think 83% of the earth's population have delusional disorder? (plus whatever percentage would come from the non religious group). That is an astounding number of people with a pretty serious mental disorder. Maybe we are wrong for having a religion, and you are right for not. But to claim we are all mentally ill, all 83% of us, is unreasonable and illogical.

I wouldn't claim that religious people are delusional in the same sense that a person with mental illness is delusional, but at the same time religious behavior shares some features with it that merely being mistaken does not.  Of particular note is the absolutism, the supposition that one's belief is knowledge, the fixedness of the beliefs, and the extreme lengths to which religious believers go to defend their beliefs, as well as the tendency to spin ad hoc rationalizations rather than questioning belief.  These are traits that are, at minimum, more emphatic in the religious than in those who are simply mistaken.  So I think there is some merit to analogizing it to delusion, even if it is not one in the same sense.  The reasons for this likely have to do with the neurological support for concepts like God which imbue them with a reality that mere abstract belief does not possess (e.g. the sensus divinitatis).  So religious belief seems to fall in a hinterland between mistaken belief and mental disorder.  And moreover, that aspect of religion tends to be responsible for motivating much of the harm that religious people cause in this world.

Claims of 'delusion' would require overwhelming evidence that the beliefs are false. All atheists have are ad hoc theories to combat the evidence/reasons Christians point to for their belief. Pressing the 'delusion' conclusion shows a complete lack of critical thinking and do no deserve an answer. However your comments are more interesting. 

You are saying something like:

1. There are no good reasons to believe in God
2. Christian belief has a component of neurological support 
3. Christians believe in God despite being shown persuasive arguments to the contrary 
4. Therefore Christians are more than merely mistaken

First, I think (1) is question begging. But I seem to see that in every atheist argument. 

Second, I don't think (1) is true. Even if the belief is false, there are reasons to believe in God (do I need to trot out my long list?). 'Good reasons' is subjective and especially when it comes to the personal reasons people give for their belief, there is no way an atheist can qualify those reasons.  

Third, for (2) Christians would claim this is a component of a cumulative case for belief: this is what we would expect to see if God exists. The defeater for such a thing is going to be something like evolutionary psychology programmed us to believe in causes and when none was apparent: God. Interesting theory that would be stronger if there were not other reasons to believe. With other reasons to believe, it is not at all compelling because it kind of assumes its conclusion. You need it to be compelling to get closer to the 'delusion' spectrum. 

Conviction that your beliefs are true is different than conviction that your beliefs are true and those beliefs entail some motivation/action/bigger picture. Inherent in Christianity is both exclusivity and a motivation/commitment to propagate the belief because the consequences of unbelief are severe. I think it is these (and other) characteristics of Christianity which makes the worldview either all true or all false. There is no middle ground. You interpret this certainty as unjustified (and approaching delusional)--but really it is a feature built into the worldview.