[
Replying to Diogenes in post #15]
I gave an example of what obviously appears to be a delusional belief, by every definition, but for the 'religion' exception:
Doesn't the belief that Muhammad rode a winged horse to Jerusalem, through seven heavens, hell, and paradise, into the presence of God, and back to Earth, appear delusional to anyone not Muslim?
To which I receive the question from William,
Why would you think that?
I am momentarily speechless. Who, besides maybe a Muslim, could possibly consider a man riding a mythical winged animal up to 'heaven,' then to six more 'heavens,' then to Hell, and back to Paradise, and finally to Earth anything but a delusional belief, but for the 'religion' exemption? If the Islamic claim does not appear absurd on its face, no amount of "man 'splaining" will be sufficient.
It's even more silly than fiery chariots going to heaven, talking snakes and Noah's mythical boat.
Why would you think that the one is 'more silly' than the others?
Also;
Re: Are Religious Beliefs Delusional?
The question appears to be a loaded one as it steers toward one of two conclusions.
1: Yes, religious beliefs
are delusional [with supporting evidence]
2: No, religious beliefs are
not delusional. [also with supporting evidence]
The better question has to be:
Q: Are All Religious Beliefs Delusional?
and with that, one can analyze the data
without the leading bias interfering with the results...
re your second question as to why religious mythology is an exception to the rule, the answer probably also comes from a position of bias as those who invent and agree to such rules might be heavily influenced by the mythological imagery to the extent where they lack understanding that the mythological imagery is simply a well intended interpretation of experiences had, which are not easily explainable to others, using whatever communication techniques available at the time of explanation.
For example, if a space-faring advanced specie were to display to an individual human mind from the stone-age period, a fully immersive holographic experience of compacted imagery showing how the universe began, and subsequently unfolded, the individual experiencing this would not be able to distinguish the holographic display from the normal reality he/she usually experiences. One would appear as real to the individual, as the other.
Further to that, any interpretation of the experience in the telling of it to his/her stone aged fellows, can only be attempted through use of analogy and those peoples understanding of form and function as it pertains to them - from their perspective in the dominant reality experience in said universe.
This is what religious mythology consists of, and as such, it is best not to take these as literal imagery but to understand these as approximations and utterances which are unable to describe
with any type of accuracy, using what device is available for them to convey experience.
When understood in this way,
any alternate experience of such nature [not just religious-based ones] is limited [to being accurately explained] by the current devices used to convey explanations of experience.
Thus the OPQ - while focused upon the religious mythologies of individual experiences, can be asked of every alternate experience ever reported.
The answer to the OPQ would therefore, have to be "we currently do not have enough information to make a call on it".
Any
literal beliefs in mythological imagery could be considered delusional.
For example, the teller of the experience might say something like "the best I can describe the manner in which I moved through layers of my experience was that it was similar to riding a horse or chariot, but there was no actual horse or chariot".
The listeners might conveniently forget that part of the tellers story, in subsequent retellings of it.
Contrary to that, the teller of the story might not explain that he/she is using analogy and simply declare "the manner in which I moved through layers of my experience was that I rode chariot" in which case it would not be a matter of delusion but rather a matter of veering away from the truth through deliberately misinforming the listeners through omittance.