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]

[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.