When is a Religious Belief Delusional?

[Neo-Scholastic]

It’s also interesting, that most are ignoring the questions, and just taking the opportunity to demean others and call them delusional.

Most but not all. I started out being pretty disappointed because the first to pounce were all on my ignore list. But there seems to be a tepid debate forming about whether delusion is too harsh. And to be fair there have been some good points made if you sift them out.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

For the Christian the beliefs are served up unquestioningly by his parents and his entire community. The beliefs are woven into how they express feelings for one another and celebrate passages and holidays.

For a long, long time, that was precisely the case in Ireland with leprechauns, brownies, banshees and the like.  In fact, when one of my grans died, we were sent out to give the news to the bees and the cows to make sure the nothing bad happened to the family after gran's death.

Could it be that when a belief or set of beliefs falls out of vogue, we are more comfortable tagging them as 'delusions'?

Boru

[Whateverist]

It is hardly harsh enough. But be that as it may we are concerned to clarify whether it accurately conveys what we wish it to.

---

For the Christian the beliefs are served up unquestioningly by his parents and his entire community. The beliefs are woven into how they express feelings for one another and celebrate passages and holidays.

For a long, long time, that was precisely the case in Ireland with leprechauns, brownies, banshees and the like.  Could it be that when a belief or set of beliefs falls out of vogue, we are more comfortable tagging them as 'delusions'?
Boru

Yep, I think so.  Because then you have to account for what drove the neo-leprechaunist to acquire that belief.  It reflects an initiative on his part and therefore is more likely ripe with pathology.  Plus we can expect less backlash from any larger community for showing him to the padded room.  (Most often done by asking him if he'd like to meet Paddy.)

[Neo-Scholastic]

It is hardly harsh enough.  But be that as it may we are concerned to clarify whether it accurately conveys what we wish it to.

I was encouraged by your comment about a fair-mind person. That said, it seems that atheist consensus is that religious belief may be accurately placed in the same category as delusion, but only in a highly imprecise way, like grouping house cats with tigers. Yes, they are the same species but still vastly different.

[LastPoet]

In my understanding, delusion really starts when you put basic human rights, excusing yourself with one's particular god, whatever the fuck that is.

Theology is just as valid as homeopathy. It makes us feel good taking decisions our super ego would.

[vorlon13]

Mark 14 (KJV)
22 And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.
23 And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it.
24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

Luke 22 (KJV)
17 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:
18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.
19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.


believing both versions are literally true and consistent with each other

[Whateverist]

Mark 14 (KJV)
22 And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.
23 And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it.
24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

Luke 22 (KJV)
17 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:
18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.
19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.


believing both versions are literally true and consistent with each other

Well both accounts may well be true.  Everyone knows Jesus was pretty likely to say almost anything when he was deep enough into his cups.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Mark 14 (KJV)
22 And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.
23 And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it.
24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

Luke 22 (KJV)
17 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:
18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.
19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.


believing both versions are literally true and consistent with each other

Well both accounts may well be true.  Everyone knows Jesus was pretty likely to say almost anything when he was deep enough into his cups.

'Ok, heresh the thing.  The thing is, ok, ok.  Redemption, right?  You gotta *hic* get redempted to get in my dad's house. And salvationing, don't forget that.  I came here to shalvation you guys, right? So, there's that, and a camel got a needle in his eye, am I right?' From Paul's epistle to the Dipsomanians.

Boru

[Pat Mustard]

Any belief is delusional when it goes against established evidence. Therefore all forms of the abrahamic religions are delusional (probably most other religious beliefs too, but I'm not expert enough to say).

When something is believed true on no or insufficient evidence, but without evidence against, it is unfounded. For example if Democritus had proposed the Higg's boson it would have remained an unfounded belief until we had the ability to measure it.

[polymath257]

It is hardly harsh enough.  But be that as it may we are concerned to clarify whether it accurately conveys what we wish it to.

I was encouraged by your comment about a fair-mind person. That said, it seems that atheist consensus is that religious belief may be accurately placed in the same category as delusion, but only in a highly imprecise way, like grouping house cats with tigers. Yes, they are the same species but still vastly different.

Both are incredibly irrational and inspire strange behavior in those holding those beliefs.

The only difference is that society is teaching one set of irrationalities, so people accept them without really thinking about them and feel general social discomfort when rejecting them.

But if society was teaching the existence of garden gnomes, would that make belief in such cease to be delusional? At the very least it is deeply, deeply irrational.

Tradition is a very poor excuse for accepting irrational beliefs.