Are Religious Beliefs Delusional?

[Diogenes]

In clinical practice, no clear guidelines exist to distinguish between "normal" religious beliefs and "pathological" religious delusions. Historically, psychiatrists such as Freud have suggested that all religious beliefs are delusional, while the current DSM-IV definition of delusion exempts religious doctrine from pathology altogether. ....
Religious beliefs and delusions alike can arise from neurologic lesions and anomalous experiences, suggesting that at least some religious beliefs can be pathological. Religious beliefs exist outside of the scientific domain; therefore they can be easily labeled delusional from a rational perspective.....

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15990520/
The question for debate is stated in the title, Are Religious Beliefs Delusional?
A subordinate question: Should we distinguish between a learned belief in supernatural phenomena and those who believe and attribute their beliefs to personal experience... and how could we tell?

[Inquirer]

...
It could represent a will, a will opposed to God's rule, who has a will opposed to God? people do.

Funny thing about that - none can show anybody's will opposes a god they can't show exists to have a "rule" they can't show it has.

You can prove what you claim here I assume?

When you're ready to answer the questions I put to you, I'll readily answer those you ask of me.

When you can show that you understand your own questions, we might get closer to some answers.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
It could represent a will, a will opposed to God's rule, who has a will opposed to God? people do.

Funny thing about that - none can show anybody's will opposes a god they can't show exists to have a "rule" they can't show it has.

You can prove what you claim here I assume?

When you're ready to answer the questions I put to you, I'll readily answer those you ask of me.

When you can show that you understand your own questions, we might get closer to some answers.

Now, ladies and germs, I don't even understand the words I type.

I reckon there's no low the Christian won't sink to in order to avoid the real or potential ramifications of their non/answer.

[Inquirer]

...
It could represent a will, a will opposed to God's rule, who has a will opposed to God? people do.

Funny thing about that - none can show anybody's will opposes a god they can't show exists to have a "rule" they can't show it has.

You can prove what you claim here I assume?

When you're ready to answer the questions I put to you, I'll readily answer those you ask of me.

When you can show that you understand your own questions, we might get closer to some answers.

Now, ladies and germs, I don't even understand the words I type.

I reckon there's no low the Christian won't sink to in order to avoid the real or potential ramifications of their non/answer.

You can't use this weak poorly phrased question and your refusal to provide clarity as yet another means to attack theists, Christians, theologians and creationists, if you have a case to argue then state it until then I'm unlikely to waste time with you.

[JoeyKnothead]

You can't use this weak poorly phrased question and your refusal to provide clarity as yet another means to attack theists, Christians, theologians and creationists, if you have a case to argue then state it until then I'm unlikely to waste time with you.

When asking a Christian if they believe biblical claims of a resurrected Jesus are truth becomes a "poorly phrased question".

[Diagoras]

<snip>

In each of those cases believers accept the stories as true because they see the associated holy books as trustworthy.

The question is, are such beliefs "delusional"? I think they are (although not to a level that would indicate psychosis).

Well, to be fair, I could accept the opposing view that such beliefs are not delusional, if we agree that a ‘delusion’ means:

“an unshakable belief in something that’s untrue. The belief isn’t a part of the person’s culture or subculture, and almost everyone else knows this belief to be false.”

<bolding mine>

In any case, believing parts of the Bible to be true doesn’t really fit any of the types of delusional disorder described here:

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/d ... l-disorder

I would instead characterise such beliefs as displaying an unusual ‘tension’ in that reconciling them (e.g. 900-year-old humans) with known scientific facts is extremely difficult.

[Clownboat]

You are unable to reconcile some of what you read with your current perception of reality.

Well shoot, guess I need to work on my reconciling skills and my perception of reality.

Resolving these and other cases involves doing just that, is there a way to reconcile?

You tell me as you somehow know that I need to work on my reconciling skills.

if you insist there is not then do as you are doing and reject the Bible as the ramblings of ancient superstitious fools.

Why do you call them fools? Surely they are evey bit as intelligent as we are. Should we fault them for thinking the gods were on Mount Olympus? I think not as they did not lack intelligence, but knowledge. The gods were the explanations for the unknowns. We know more now and such explanations are not needed for most.

As is often the case, the sceptic rarely applies the same degree of intellectual rigor that they demand from others.

My god! I didn't even realize my degree of intellectual rigor was so demanding. I'll get on fixing that straight away. Thank you!

The serpent in Eden need not be a material "snake"

Full stop. Therein lies one of the problem. The Bible is unclear about such things, but maybe you are on to something.
Perhaps Jonah's whale was not material either.
Perhaps the talking donkey was not material.
Perhaps the global flood was not material.
Perhaps Jesus's resurrection was also not material.

You don't see the problem, do you?

So these can be challenging

You don't say!

[Inquirer]

I would instead characterise such beliefs as displaying an unusual ‘tension’ in that reconciling them (e.g. 900-year-old humans) with known scientific facts is extremely difficult.

As a scientist myself I agree, the apparent inconsistency between what is recorded and what is believed today can be challenging.

A cold hard fact must never be overlooked, and that is all claims about the past are supposition, based on many assumptions and unprovable claims and beliefs.

As soon as one acknowledges that point the better, because evaluating things from the assumption "we know the truth" is folly, what we believe - as scientists - is itself often speculative, it is never certain.

Regarding the record of people living to 900+ years, what is all the fuss about here? I think it is because the atheists, skeptics, by and large see this and other claims as weakness in the Bible narrative and so want to attack these weaknesses as a means to discredit the Bible.

I have science books on my shelf here that contain claims and ideas that are now known to be wrong, does that mean the book can be discarded entirely? that it contains no truth?

Remarkable, unusual, incredible things do happen, can happen and will happen, so that they happened in the past must be true also.

Concluding that nobody ever lived over 900 years is not a provable statement, like it or not, it is speculation, absolutely nobody has the ability to prove it false - that doesn't make it true by any means, but we should not lose sight of this.

As many here will know already, science cannot prove anything, hypotheses and theories are always potentially wrong, the history of science demonstrates this.

This is why I refer so often to being open minded, if we don't know we don't know so don't pretend we do, don't pretend a claim is absurd when we have no idea if it is.

Never forget, something remarkable, truly remarkable must has happened at some point in the past else you'd not be sitting there reading these words.

[Diagoras]

A cold hard fact must never be overlooked, and that is all claims about the past are supposition, based on many assumptions and unprovable claims and beliefs.

Do you include claims made in the Bible, or is that somehow a special case?

As soon as one acknowledges that point the better, because evaluating things from the assumption "we know the truth" is folly, what we believe - as scientists - is itself often speculative, it is never certain.

I forgot to note the author of this quote, but it’s a relevant counter to the charge that ‘science isn’t certain’:

“The pragmatic reason to believe anything is true at all is to use that information to guide our actions. Sooner or later, the truth of a claim is measured by its power to inform our decisions under the expectation of predictable outcomes. Decisions based on true beliefs will manifest themselves in the form of experiences that were correctly anticipated. Decisions based on false beliefs will eventually fail in that goal.”

If science is ‘never certain’, you wouldn’t have a working smartphone.

Regarding the record of people living to 900+ years, what is all the fuss about here? I think it is because the atheists, skeptics, by and large see this and other claims as weakness in the Bible narrative and so want to attack these weaknesses as a means to discredit the Bible.

Correct. Pointing out weaknesses in an opposing view is how debate - and, indeed, science works…

I have science books on my shelf here that contain claims and ideas that are now known to be wrong, does that mean the book can be discarded entirely? that it contains no truth?

Two separate questions. To answer the first: Perhaps. It’s usually good practice to update textbooks to the latest version if you are going to be relying on the science. But keeping a record of ‘where we went wrong’ may be just as useful in some circumstances.

To the second part: No. It should be a trivial point to point out that books can contain both true and false claims.

Remarkable, unusual, incredible things do happen, can happen and will happen, so that they happened in the past must be true also.

And it’s the job of science to investigate these things in order to better understand them - or in some cases, to discover that they are unlikely to be true.

Concluding that anyone ever lived over 900 years is not a provable statement, like it or not, it is speculation, absolutely nobody has the ability to prove it - and we should not lose sight of this.

As many here will know already, science cannot prove anything, hypotheses and theories are always potentially wrong, the history of science demonstrates this.

See above quote in italics.

This is why I refer so often to being open minded, if we don't know we don't know so don't pretend we do,

See above - first question about the Bible being a special case.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #187]

Concluding that nobody ever lived over 900 years is not a provable statement, like it or not, it is speculation, absolutely nobody has the ability to prove it false - that doesn't make it true by any means, but we should not lose sight of this.

Skepticism that any human ever lived to over 200 years, much less 900 years, is certainly justified. Just because it can't be proven to be false does not make it reasonable to believe that something so unlikely actually happened in the past. The physiological changes such a human would need make it so improbable that it can safely be regarded as myth.

It is no different from a claim that some human made an unaided high jump of 100 feet, or ran the mile in 30 seconds. These are things humans today are incapable of doing by huge margins, and going backwards in time all evidence suggests that humans lived for less time than today, not more. A 900+ year old human living in biblical times would have to be nothing like humans of today ... enough different to classify them as something other than member of the genus Homo.

[Inquirer]

A cold hard fact must never be overlooked, and that is all claims about the past are supposition, based on many assumptions and unprovable claims and beliefs.

Do you include claims made in the Bible, or is that somehow a special case?

All claims, any purported historic claim.

As soon as one acknowledges that point the better, because evaluating things from the assumption "we know the truth" is folly, what we believe - as scientists - is itself often speculative, it is never certain.

I forgot to note the author of this quote, but it’s a relevant counter to the charge that ‘science isn’t certain’:

“The pragmatic reason to believe anything is true at all is to use that information to guide our actions. Sooner or later, the truth of a claim is measured by its power to inform our decisions under the expectation of predictable outcomes. Decisions based on true beliefs will manifest themselves in the form of experiences that were correctly anticipated. Decisions based on false beliefs will eventually fail in that goal.”

If science is ‘never certain’, you wouldn’t have a working smartphone.

That's a philosophical proposition not a scientific one.

Regarding the record of people living to 900+ years, what is all the fuss about here? I think it is because the atheists, skeptics, by and large see this and other claims as weakness in the Bible narrative and so want to attack these weaknesses as a means to discredit the Bible.

Correct. Pointing out weaknesses in an opposing view is how debate - and, indeed, science works…

Purported weaknesses though are not sufficient to discredit a claim. These claims about living over 900 years are represented as being untenable because they conflict not with observational data bit with the beliefs held by these critics.

I have science books on my shelf here that contain claims and ideas that are now known to be wrong, does that mean the book can be discarded entirely? that it contains no truth?

Two separate questions. To answer the first: Perhaps. It’s usually good practice to update textbooks to the latest version if you are going to be relying on the science. But keeping a record of ‘where we went wrong’ may be just as useful in some circumstances.

To the second part: No. It should be a trivial point to point out that books can contain both true and false claims.

Right so even if the claims about people living over 900 years were somehow categorically proven to be false, that does not then prove that the Bible itself is entirely false.

Remarkable, unusual, incredible things do happen, can happen and will happen, so that they happened in the past must be true also.

And it’s the job of science to investigate these things in order to better understand them - or in some cases, to discover that they are unlikely to be true.
Concluding that anyone ever lived over 900 years is not a provable statement, like it or not, it is speculation, absolutely nobody has the ability to prove it - and we should not lose sight of this.

Science deals with predictability, predicated on the presence of laws of nature. Science cannot disprove a claim from antiquity. Nor can "unlikely" be established other than on the basis of ad-hoc assumptions.

No proposition is provable (that is, can be shown to be unquestionably true or false) except mathematical propositions which are predicated on unambiguous and self consistent axioms. One can even change the axioms and a proposition that was true becomes false or vice versa.

As many here will know already, science cannot prove anything, hypotheses and theories are always potentially wrong, the history of science demonstrates this.

See above quote in italics.

Yes, I've just addressed that.

This is why I refer so often to being open minded, if we don't know we don't know so don't pretend we do,

See above - first question about the Bible being a special case.

I do not regard the Bible as a special case other than to the extent that it represents revealed knowledge from the creator of the universe and all it contains.