When is a Religious Belief Delusional?

[Neo-Scholastic]

History is a hard area for me to think about in these terms.  Confirmation bias is always in play.

Fair enough. It seems implausible to me that all the NT scholars, such as N. T. Wright, who do know history and remain Christians are suffering from delusions. It seems to me that a reasonable person, such as yourself, would be willing to condemn the incendiary rhetoric of those who claim all religious beliefs are delusions.

And yes, confirmation bias is indeed something everyone should guard themselves against, believers and skeptics alike.

[SteveII]

Note the bold. Please provide a list of the "indisputable evidence" that there is no God.

Provide the evidence that I do not have an invisible garage dragon. Of course, you cannot. In your delusion, my invisible garage dragon cannot be proven to not exist. Therefore you must accept it as real. It may seem trivial to you, but that is your argument. Maybe you don't much like that fact. Fine. Stop making such stupid "arguments" in that case. The garage dragon argument is not a claim of fact. It is an illustration of the paucity of yours.

Easy--dragons, by definition have an explanation of their existence, another entity in the universe, a contingent object. As such, this dragon would be subject to investigation by science. Your invisible dragon takes the concept of a dragon and then without explanation exempts it from the laws of physics. Every stitch of our scientific understanding of how the universe works is evidence that your invisible dragon does not exists. So, because there is "indisputable evidence" to the contrary, your are delusional to think you have an invisible dragon in your garage. 

If God exists, by definition he exists necessarily and is not a part of the universe. Not another being among beings. Reasons to believe in the existence of God are in a different category than any silly analogy you can dream up. 

Absence such a list, such a belief by definition is not a delusion.

Wrong. You are entirely innocent of any demonstration for the deity of your choice, and nobody but you believes in it bar a population of YOU. Not even your co-rteligionists believe in it. All of them have their very own version, many of whom want to kill you and yours.

These "no evidence" claims don't get less stupid the more atheists make them. There is plenty of reason and evidence to come to a rational belief in God. If you don't think so, that is because of some defect in either your understanding of what constitutes reasons, evidence, rational, or something.

Note that this is not merely "in spite of no evidence". It is in the face of indisputable evidence to the contrary. 

Yet somehow, you fail to present any evidence at all. Why is that?

Here you go. Deal with this list of evidence:

---

For those following, first a definition: Inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning or abductive reasoning) is a method of reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying some evidence for the truth of the conclusion. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument may be probable, based upon the evidence given.

P1. Miraculous effects have been specifically attributed to God (a supernatural being). Example, the paralytic healed by Jesus: "Mark 2:10...but I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the man, 11 “I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home.” 12 He got up, took his mat and walked out in full view of them all...". There are a hundred such examples in the NT where supernatural causation was declared or unmistakably inferred from the context.
P2. The resurrected Jesus was seen by as many as 500 people. Recently crucified people do not walk around and declare that they have conquered death and provided a way for man's redemption and as such, this is an obvious, rather big, supernatural claim.
     In support of P1 and P2, we have the following:
     a. Jesus most certainly was born, baptized, and died in the time period claimed. (other sources)
     b. Pete, James and John were known eyewitnesses to both the public and private events of Jesus' three year ministry (every other NT writer)
     c. They presided over the early church (Paul, Acts, first/second century docs)
     d. This early church instructed Paul (Paul, Acts)
     e. As evidenced by Paul's letters, this early church believed the claims later outlined in the gospels (long before they where written). We can infer from this the source of these beliefs were a critical mass of people who believed these events really happened which actually prompted immediate and significant action on their part--to evangelize the Roman world.  
     f. Peter, James and John eventually wrote letters emphasizing the themes found in the gospels
     g. Luke wrote Luke and Acts with the purpose of outlining the events from the birth of Christ through his present day
     h. The editors of Matthew, Mark, and John were all alive during the lifetimes of these people above (it is unknown if the actual people with the pen were eyewitnesses)
     i. The editors would have been know to the recipients of the gospels. The books were name by which apostle influenced that particular book
     j. The early church, who we know believed the claims of Jesus already, accepted the gospels. There is nothing in the early church writings that questioned them.
     k. The gospels dovetail nicely with Paul's writings based on his training directly from all the eyewitnesses (completing a loop)
     l. Alternate theories of the NT and early church provenance lack explanatory power of the evidence on all sorts of levels
P3. The main promise of the NT is a series of specific supernatural effects on a person
P4. An untold number of people have reported such effects
P5. An untold number of people have reported minor miracles (defined as person-oriented miracles for which the goal is very narrow -- as opposed to the NT miracles which had broad application and goals). Ranges from healing, bringing about events/experiences/encounters/open doors, extraordinary strength/peace/perseverance, evangelistic success, etc.
P6. The question why anything at all exists has no naturalistic explanation (and most likely none forthcoming).
P7. The question of why the universe exists has no metaphysically sound naturalistic explanation. There is no reason to think one will be forthcoming.
P8. The question of why our universe has the narrow range of physical constants which seem necessary to form matter and conserve energy but under naturalism has no other explanation than fantastically amazing chance that would not be accepted in any other case.
P9. The question of why our minds seem non-physical but have causal powers over the physical undercuts hard naturalism and seems to have parallels to the concept of the supernatural (not that they are necessarily supernatural).
P10. The question of why there seems to exist a knowledge of basic morality in most people and most people believe it to be based on an objective set of principles (moral Platonism) not derived from any evolutionary process.
P11. There is physical evidence for the supernatural (from P1, P2)
P12. There is a persistent, growing, unbroken chain of personal reports of the supernatural (from P4, P5)
P13. There are reason to think that naturalism is an insufficient worldview and the existence of the supernatural has better explanatory powers in a variety of these gaps. (from P6, P7, P8, P9, P10)

THEREFORE: There are multiple lines of evidence/reasoning that infer the supernatural. Bayes showed us that that more data points that you have that infer a conclusion, the higher the probability the conclusion is true.

---

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?

Sure we can. What we cannot prevent is you ignoring all of it.

You say that you can, but no one ever can. So...I'm calling bullshit.

[Amarok]

See above for more examples 

[Whateverist]

History is a hard area for me to think about in these terms.  Confirmation bias is always in play.

Fair enough. It seems implausible to me that all the NT scholars, such as N. T. Wright, who do know history and remain Christians are suffering from delusions. It seems to me that a reasonable person, such as yourself, would be willing to condemn the incendiary rhetoric of those who claim all religious beliefs are delusions.

And yes, confirmation bias is indeed something everyone should guard themselves against, believers and skeptics alike.

I don't endorse it but neither do I feel the need to characterize religious beliefs in an inflammatory manner.  But then I know a couple believers who hold their beliefs in a manner that puts the lie to those descriptions.  Not all atheists who have had the good fortune to meet the unicorns I have.  If they have been mistreated by the religious communities in which they grew up when they decided to abandon those beliefs, it is entirely understandable if emotion colors the way they describe religious belief.  What really is the harm?  I don't think it is any worse than continually being asked why we hate God or having our time wasted by zealots intent on saving our souls.

[Minimalist]

Here's a current example of delusional theistic fuckheads.

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/09/emaciat...ious-fast/

Emaciated Wisconsin teen dies after ‘minister’ parents impose a multi-month religious fast

Want a chicken leg, Chad?

[Angrboda]

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.  

It absolutely is circular because human beings are not naturally equal. There are all kinds of metrics by which people vary not the least of which are sex, intelligence, age, health, stature, and attractiveness. Any one or more of those natural inequalities could (and has been) used to deny the dignity due to every human being. And if you think that is obvious then you are at odds with the overwhelming judgment of cultures over history for thousands of years. I would suggest that the only reason it is 'obvious' is because Judeo-Christian values, developed over 2000 years, are so embedded in Western culture that even secular people in those societies take them for granted.

As a social species, we have evolved mechanisms for identifying those like us. We identify the commonalities and ignore the differences because we evolved to do so. When is the last time you experienced sexual attraction for a duck? Even when our recognition of similarity was corrupted by cultural mechanisms, humans still bred inter-racially, showing that they recognized the identity of species biologically, even if culture might have told them something different. And this idea that we get these ideas from Judeo-Christianity has been debunked so many times it's not funny. I know I've personally debunked it with you in the past, so you have no excuse. We owe as much of our cultural heritage to the Greeks and others. Even if we take our cue from Christianity, that is nothing but an accidental fact, for people as far afield as China ruled amongst themselves on a similar basis, so the idea that it is specific to your culture, and not something that transcends culture is just crap.

We look at the commonalities when positing identity, not differences. Thus height and intelligence don't form a basis of identification because they vary. I never said it was 'obvious' that humans are a part of a common species. Any evolved mechanism can be mediated by learned behaviors. Even when not so mediated, epistemological concerns remain. And now we're looking at a further evolution when we sympathize with the suffering that a cow or chicken experiences when mistreated in commercial farming operations. Did we learn that from Judeo-Christianity as well? No, as a matter of fact, Judeo-Christianity teaches the exact opposite. And I need not remind you that Judeo-Christianity acknowledged and accepted the dehumanization of slaves. Against no one else were you allowed to beat a person without consequences so long as they didn't die. That indignity was reserved for slaves. The point is that we recognize certain things as fundamental and a relevant basis toward equal treatment of differing particulars. We can reason to that conclusion on the basis of evolved mechanisms like empathy and patterning, as well as practical means like social and sexual egagement. Thus we might include chickens and cows, but we wouldn't exclude someone for being different in height.

So, no, it isn't circular.

And I notice you ignored my question about the disanalogy between beliefs like morals, numbers, and the existence of human equality and that of the existence of God. That's still valid in lieu of an objection.

[Anomalocaris]

Yes, because some of the people Plutarch speaks of are real.  And a few are mythic heroes.

Plutarch isn’t believe for the exceptional claim he made, requiring exceptional evidence he did not provide. The most worthless and unconvincing sources are those that makes extraordinary claim without showing significant sign of cognizance of their needing to provide extraordinary evidence and submiting to even more extraordinarily rigorous examination.

Christian sources are in the latter category. They are uniformly either fools or liars. Fools and liars can also get the color of sky right. But that is no evidence for their more extraordinary claims being of any merit.

[Neo-Scholastic]

As a social species, we have evolved mechanisms for identifying those like us. We identify the commonalities and ignore the differences because we evolved to do so. When is the last time you experienced sexual attraction for a duck?

Fuck a duck. :-) Recognizing a potential mate is vastly different from recognizing him or her as an equal.

We owe as much of our cultural heritage to the Greeks and others in the region,...

Yes, Hellenistic ideas were imported into the Christian tradition. Yes, other cultures independently developed similar values. One could conceivably argue that ideas of universal equality are latent in some Stoic texts, but the fact remains that these values never came to fruition in the same way they did in Christianity. That those latent values were not immediately recognized by the early church does not refute that fact that those values are in scripture and were eventually brought forth.The idea of “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights” was a revolutionary and historically unique formulation born out of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Be all that as it may, this thread is about whether or not religious beliefs are categorically delusional. Having an alternate secular account of the source of moral sentiments or whether Western moral values come out of Christianity is not germane to the topic of the thread. Is it delusional to attribute those values to a transcendent source, such as believed by as diverse thinkers as Plato, Emerson, and Kant?

… my question about the disanalogy between beliefs like the existence of human equality and that of the existence of God. That's still valid in lieu of an objection.

If you don’t like the analogy then use mathematical realism as a better one. I would like to see you argue that considering mathematical objects real is delusional.

[Angrboda]

As a social species, we have evolved mechanisms for identifying those like us.  We identify the commonalities and ignore the differences because we evolved to do so.  When is the last time you experienced sexual attraction for a duck?

Fuck a duck. :-) Recognizing a potential mate is vastly different from recognizing him or her as an equal.

No, it requires recognizing them as the same as you and then applying an imperative of fairness. That was the point, and it still holds. The point being that recognition of human sameness doesn't rest upon arbitrary grounds.

We owe as much of our cultural heritage to the Greeks and others in the region,...

Yes, Hellenistic ideas were imported into the Christian tradition. Yes, other cultures independently developed similar values. One could conceivably argue that ideas of universal equality are  latent in some Stoic texts, but the fact remains that these values never came to fruition in the same way they did in Christianity. That those latent values were not immediately recognized by the early church does not refute that fact that those values are in scripture and were eventually brought forth.The idea of “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights” was a revolutionary and historically unique formulation born out of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Be all that as it may, this thread is about whether or not religious beliefs are categorically delusional. Having an alternate secular account of the source of moral sentiments or whether Western moral values come out of Christianity is not germane to the topic of the thread. Is it delusional to attribute those values to a transcendent source, such as believed by as diverse thinkers as Plato, Emerson, and Kant?

The point is their ubiquity argues that there is a biological basis which transcends cultural differences, something you were arguing against with this "we got it from Judeo-Christianity" crap. Having a secular account provides a rational basis for belief in those things. The question was is it delusional to believe in those things. If they have a rational foundation, then no it is not. Is it delusional to believe in Plato's forms? As noted below, I don't think that falls into the same category, so it would be a moot point either way.

… my question about the disanalogy between beliefs like the existence of human equality and that of the existence of God.  That's still valid in lieu of an objection.

If you don’t like the analogy then use mathematical realism as a better one. I would like to see you argue that considering mathematical objects real is delusional.

Mathematical realism fares no better as it is well recognized that the ontology of numbers and morals is significantly unlike the ontology of existents like this desk, or a supposed god, thus unless you can reconcile those differences, your argument to analogy fails. Even if we recognized that belief in numbers was not in some sense rationally founded, that it was some form of error, we would not conclude that it is the same sort of error as believing in the existence of an immaterial being which can act and interact with the real world.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Mathematical realism fares no better as it is well recognized that the ontology of numbers and morals is significantly unlike the ontology of existents like this desk, or a supposed god, thus unless you can reconcile those differences, your argument to analogy fails.  

And therein lies the rub. Despite how many time believers tell you that we do not define God as just one more thing in a world of things, you still try to compare God to all manner of contingent things, like desks and invisible dragons. So yes, my analogy holds perfectly fine. One type of immaterial object, a mathematical one, with another immaterial object, a Prime Mover/Necessary Being/Etc.