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?

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #217]

Careful, this kind of reasoning will have you believing in fairies, unicorns and all sorts of other things that we have no evidence for.
These words are a weak justification for believing in any god and even worse when there is a specific god being argued for.

I do admit, for all we know, there could be millions of fairies, unicorns and gods, but I will await evidence before applying faith to justify what I have decided to believe in as faith is the pathway to all the gods. It is also a required mechanism in order to believe in something that is false, note that I'm not saying faith = false.

Except a metaphysically necessary being is not equal to a contingent being like a fairy.

There is no evidence for the gods, to conflict. They could be real or not real, just like fairies or unicorns. I'm leaning towards them all being human inventions, how about you?

I conclude that non-necessary beings like fairies and gods and unicorns most likely do not exist, but that the metaphysically necessary being most like does.

If there is no evidence for the gods, conflict is impossible. No conflict suggest no evidence and no evidence suggests no gods.

There is evidence. It is just not convincing enough for many people. I think they need also to experience the metaphysical world, then the evidence would be enough.

A lack of a reason to believe in a concept is reason enough to suspend belief.
Not being able to disprove something (for all we know, because it doesn't exist) is not a valid reason to form a belief that a thing is real.

There are reasons to believe, though. Most atheists do not take their lack of belief to the logical consequences. Graham Oppy does, which is why he says he leans toward existence being a spontaneous event with no cause or reason. He rejects PSR, which states that all things ought to have a reason, explanation or cause for being. Without PSR, it is very difficult to take science seriously, btw.

Like believing that snakes/donkeys spoke, or that fish and bread were conjured, or that a man lived in the belly of a fish/whale for days, or that hundreds of dead bodies got out of their graves and walked Jerusalem and on and on?

Most of that is just stories, not history. That which is presented as History doesn't contradict any known evidence.

[JoeyKnothead]

I can't speak for other religious beliefs...but as far as Christian theism; no, belief in Christian theism is not delusional, based on the positive reasons we (in my opinion) have to believe in it.

Now, if that isn't good enough for you, then I will ask..

Are certain scientific (and/or atheistic) beliefs delusional? You know, things like..

1. Macroevolution
2. The multiverse theory
3. Abiogenesis
4. Certain interpretations of Quantum Physics
5. Panspermia

I personally find all 5 of those beliefs delusional...and I've yet met anyone who can reasonably defend either belief.

Keyword; reasonably.

It's kinda hard to have a reasoned discussion with the unreasonable, but here we go...

Macroevolution's inferred from confirmed observations of changes in alleles over relatively shorter time spans. Fuss you up enough of them small changes, and the species pop out like babies from a sixteen year old hillbilly chick with four brothers and an uncle of low moral character.

I make no claims regarding multiverse theories, other'n to confirm they're hypothesi, not theories.

Abiogenesis is inferred from the observation that chemicals combine to form more comparatively complex stuff, and critters are trying to horn in on the racket.

Please provide particular bits of quantum physics you find most upsetting.

Panspermia is an hypothesis based on the probabilities of chemicals bunching up "out yonder" in much the same way they do here on our lovely planet.

[Diogenes]

Are certain scientific (and/or atheistic) beliefs delusional? You know, things like..

1. Macroevolution
2. The multiverse theory
3. Abiogenesis
4. Certain interpretations of Quantum Physics
5. Panspermia

I personally find all 5 of those beliefs delusional...and I've yet met anyone who can reasonably defend either belief.

Your failure to understand science does not make science delusional.
For example, "macroevolution' is a process even thoughtful evolution deniers understand and believe in [tho' they mistakenly try to separate it from 'microevolution' since their religious delusion prevents them from accepting the most well proved theory in biology].

The multiverse and abiogenesis are simply theories, the former being more speculative. Abiogenesis as another theory that, although there is great support for, it hasn't had nearly the confirmation of evolution... yet.

Your demonstrated ignorance of science and devotion to faith claims in preference to reality tells me it is pointless to respond to anything more you have to say on the subject.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Your failure to understand science does not make science delusional.
For example, "macroevolution' is a process even thoughtful evolution deniers understand and believe in [tho' they mistakenly try to separate it from 'microevolution' since their religious delusion prevents them from accepting the most well proved theory in biology].

Here is what I understand..

Canines produce canines, felines produce felines, etc...

That is what I understand. If you believe that the canines of today originated from non-canines of yesterday, then there lies the contention.

The multiverse and abiogenesis are simply theories, the former being more speculative. Abiogenesis as another theory that, although there is great support for, it hasn't had nearly the confirmation of evolution... yet.

None of it has any confirmation.

Your demonstrated ignorance of science and devotion to faith claims in preference to reality tells me it is pointless to respond to anything more you have to say on the subject.

Gotcha.

[Jose Fly]

Are certain scientific (and/or atheistic) beliefs delusional? You know, things like..

1. Macroevolution
2. The multiverse theory
3. Abiogenesis
4. Certain interpretations of Quantum Physics
5. Panspermia

I personally find all 5 of those beliefs delusional...and I've yet met anyone who can reasonably defend either belief.

Keyword; reasonably.

First of all, what do any of those things have to do with atheism? Second, macroevolution (evolution of new species) is a directly observed and documented fact.

[Purple Knight]

Your failure to understand science does not make science delusional.

Here's the thing though, and this is why the DSM shouldn't be backing up any of it...

If his side had the majority opinion, the accepted opinion, the way I read the DSM, it very well would define macroevolution as a delusion since you would have, in that hypothetical world, a cluster of fringe nutjobs believing in a phenomenon nobody has ever seen happen, and the big kicker is, not because anyone told them it happened, but because they figured, mostly on their own, that it did happen.

It's because I look at these possible worlds all at once that I see the DSM and not Venom, or any of his, as the problem here. The DSM is just a tool designed to help people bully the minority opinion. It functions that way in any universe you imagine it in, as long as it reads much the same about delusion.

We need to really look at how minority viewpoints are being thrown under the bus and actively protect flat earthers and religiosos and conservatives and racists and people who think they're aliens because the whole world has slowly turned into ideological Nazism without anybody noticing, and the DSM labeling so much of everything as a delusion that they need to specifically exempt religious beliefs should have been a huge red flag.

[Diogenes]

Your failure to understand science does not make science delusional.

Here's the thing though, and this is why the DSM shouldn't be backing up any of it...

If his side had the majority opinion, the accepted opinion, the way I read the DSM, it very well would define macroevolution as a delusion since you would have, in that hypothetical world, a cluster of fringe nutjobs believing in a phenomenon nobody has ever seen happen, and the big kicker is, not because anyone told them it happened, but because they figured, mostly on their own, that it did happen.

Comparing belief in evolution to belief in angels, demons, talking donkeys, being raised from the dead, the Earth not spinning on its axis is simply absurd. In the first place, evolution has been and is currently being observed. There is probably no other theory as well documented or has more straightforward evidence supporting it, than evolution. The fact that anti science religionists mischaracterize both the theory and the evidence supporting it, does not change the fact evolution is not a matter of opinion and should not be compared to belief in fairies.

Belief that a child can be conceived in a woman without a sperm cell is akin to belief in fairies. So is the claim of Elijah outrunning Ahab's chariot* or that Jesus turned water into wine, or oil and flour containers that cannot be emptied. These are not just minority views that science cannot explain, they are fantastic.

As I've said, the failure to understand evolution, or other well proved natural phenomena is not evidence they are similarly fantastic.
Delusional beliefs, that is, beliefs that otherwise seem impossible, that cannot be observed AND have no support in science or history, things like burning chariots flying men to 'heaven' are clearly delusional... UNLESS some religion claims they are so. The DSM simply carves out an exception IF the impossible claim is part of a religious tradition. The difference is that the person of faith "believes" only because of that tradition. These are events that same person would not accept as fact, but for that tradition.
__________________________
*Then the Lord gave special strength to Elijah. He tucked his cloak into his belt and ran ahead of Ahab’s chariot all the way to the entrance of Jezreel.
1 Kings 18:46

[William]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #219]

I will await evidence before applying faith

Can you provide an example where faith is applied after evidence is supplied?

No as I don't employ faith in my life.

Isn't that because you are awaiting evidence?

To be more accurate, I should have said that 'I will await evidence for fairies, gods and unicorns before forming a belief about them'.

Beliefs are strange things. I think they only apply to things which remain hidden from our ability to observe, or where something is observed but unable to be explained...beliefs can be formed around the unexplained bits.

Once beliefs become established as truth in the minds of those with the beliefs, they become non-negotiable..."might as well go talk to that scarecrow in the field" ...

[We_Are_VENOM]

First of all, what do any of those things have to do with atheism?

Everything.

All atheists that I am aware of hold to at LEAST one of those beliefs, which, are in my opinion, delusional.

So, don't be the pot calling the kettle black as you talk about what you believe to be the delusional ways of religious beliefs, when your camp have delusional beliefs as well.

At least, from where we (creationists) are sitting.

Second, macroevolution (evolution of new species) is a directly observed and documented fact.

The evolution of new species is not macroevolution.

[Jose Fly]

All atheists that I am aware of hold to at LEAST one of those beliefs, which, are in my opinion, delusional.

But a lot of theists also accept those things, so why is the fact that atheists do too siginficant?

The evolution of new species is not macroevolution.

Yes it is. Microevolution is evolution within a species, such as antibiotic resistance in bacteria, macroevolution is evolution above that, which includes the evolution of new species.