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?

[Purple Knight]

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.

I believe you. But the trouble is in the complexity of the observation. I can prove I'm not crazy for believing in swans if I can wrangle one and put it in front of the psychiatrist. That's where my ability to prove something to an adherent of the DSM ends. The consensus will be with him, and the consensus will turn something that can't be conveniently observed happening in under 10 minutes to something that seems impossible and can't be observed because nobody in the scientific community will give it the bloody 10 minutes.

People actually believe fossils aren't the remains of real animals. You could even show them something getting fossilised and they would say yes, well, that doesn't mean that other fossil appeared by the same process. Without the live swan they will doubt. I think every day about how lucky we are to live in a world where that is considered the kooky thing, because if that was the majority it would simply be considered rational skepticism. Do you see how we both understand that what Banjo is doing in this clip is silly? Well we understand that because of common sense, and we rely on the world to agree... when it doesn't have to be that way.



If this wasn't comedy because the world saw Banjo as the rational skeptic and Farnsworth's claims as unproven, what could you say to that?

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.

The only thing that shouldn't be compared to belief in fairies is a belief where you can set down a live swan and put an end to it. Everything else is up for grabs for the DSM to define as insane, without direct and immediate incontrovertible observation, and as you can see, it doesn't hesitate. The DSM casts a net so broad it catches most people currently walking the earth, and is forced to then manually free each one with what is obvious to both of us as a glaringly unfair exception. Casting the net that broadly is the problem, and having to manually disentangle billions of dolphins is just the evidence of their misdeed: Evidence that they want the power to lock up anybody they like.

Religious people aren't crazy, and neither is someone who thinks they're from planet Mylar. I know they're not crazy because they don't act on their beliefs. When they start killing babies because this gives the babies a free pass to Heaven, or when the Mylarian attempts something that risks someone else because he'd be easily able to do it if he really were a long string of yarn, then they're crazy. The DSM is wrong, and fantasies don't make you crazy even if you pretend they're reality.

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.

That's why you should accept the pervasive influence of tradition, and just how far aside a science (psychology in this example, but it could as easily be biology) will move to walk around it. What you're observing here is the very reason the entire way of defining people as delusional is bunk. If they will write an exception to appease tradition, which it is clear and obvious that they have done, it should be equally obvious that in a universe where religion has control, and evolution is believed only by a minority, the scientific consensus would look different, because science can be unfair and give such an egregious berth to whatever belief the majority holds for whatever reason they hold it. If they've held it a long time this is simply describing tradition.

We have an example of science bowing to religion and calling it science, so it shouldn't be weird to imagine science would bow harder if religion had even more dominance. The consensus of scientific community would simply ignore the evidence.

[Clownboat]

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

I know right! Fairies are much greater. Some say that fairie farts can even create universes! Since fairies are outside of our universe, there is no need for a metaphysical being anymore.

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.

You're lucky that fairies are not jealous!
What metaphysical necessary being are you talking about? What do we know about this being and how did we learn it?

There is evidence. It is just not convincing enough for many people.

Then it is poor evidence. I have no problem following evidence where it leads.

I think they need also to experience the metaphysical world, then the evidence would be enough.

Metaphysical would mean it is outside of a humans sense of perception. How do experience something we cannot sense?

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.

You claim the bold, then leave us all wondering. Valid reasons would be layed out on the table.

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.

What mechanism do you use to determine what was real and not real in the Bible? I would like to analyze it.

That which is presented as History doesn't contradict any known evidence.

See the history of the Exodus for one such example where history contradicts the evidence.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #232]

Metaphysical would mean it is outside of a humans sense of perception. How do experience something we cannot sense?

You are a metaphysical soul, so that would be how. The body does a good job at convincing you it is who you are.

You claim the bold, then leave us all wondering. Valid reasons would be layed out on the table.

I have talked about them, like Ed Feser's Aristotelean argument and Thomistic argument. Then we have the modal ontological arguments. What do naturalists have to convince us the world is just natural? Spontaneous existence? You probably do not even have a world view. You are probably okay with saying "I don't know" to questions like why is there existence at all?

What mechanism do you use to determine what was real and not real in the Bible? I would like to analyze it.

I do not think mechanism is the right word. I go by the structure of the writing itself. When you read something like Aesop's Fabels, you seem to know it is a story with a moral lesson and not history. You should be able to do the same when reading older text like the bible.

See the history of the Exodus for one such example where history contradicts the evidence.

Exodus is not a history book. It is like saying science contradicts Aesop's Fables. Sure it does, but the fables are not a science book, so in fact, science doesn't disprove Aesop's fables. They still serve their purpose to teach moral lessons.

It doesn't matter if history contradicts Exodus because Exodus still serves its purpose. Also, you should check out Patterns of Evidence - Exodus - https://archive.org/details/patterns-of-evidence-exodus

[Clownboat]

You are a metaphysical soul, so that would be how.

Can you show that your starting premise is valid and that we are metaphysical souls?

You are probably okay with saying "I don't know" to questions like why is there existence at all?

I honestly admit that I don't know why there is existence. I note that billions of humans pretend to know or more accurately have picked a religion to supply said answers. Should we then say, such people are not okay with saying "I don't know" which is why they accept one of the available explanations we have available?

What mechanism do you use to determine what was real and not real in the Bible? I would like to analyze it.

I do not think mechanism is the right word. I go by the structure of the writing itself. When you read something like Aesop's Fabels, you seem to know it is a story with a moral lesson and not history. You should be able to do the same when reading older text like the bible.

I note that you don't have a mechanism to tell what is real or not real in the Bible. Therefore there is no way to know what is a real claim or unreal claim in the Bible outside of personal feelings.

See the history of the Exodus for one such example where history contradicts the evidence.

Exodus is not a history book.

Please note, I never said Exodus was a history book. The story of the Exodus does contradict historical evidence though.

It doesn't matter if history contradicts Exodus

Sure it does. There was no exodus as told in the story due to the fact that history contradicts the story. That matters greatly and shows that the story and its source cannot be trusted. This matters.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #234]

Can you show that your starting premise is valid and that we are metaphysical souls?

I can only show that by arguments of the best explanation, consciousness is a metaphysical property.

I honestly admit that I don't know why there is existence. I note that billions of humans pretend to know or more accurately have picked a religion to supply said answers. Should we then say, such people are not okay with saying "I don't know" which is why they accept one of the available explanations we have available?

Yes. I surely like to have answers and metaphysics offers them.

I note that you don't have a mechanism to tell what is real or not real in the Bible. Therefore there is no way to know what is a real claim or unreal claim in the Bible outside of personal feelings.

Except that is not what I said.

Please note, I never said Exodus was a history book. The story of the Exodus does contradict historical evidence though.

I haven't seen anything in history that contradicts Exodus as far as what would be considered real events. In fact, in this documentary, they show that there is a lot of evidence for the exodus story, but it happens earlier in time than previous thought- https://archive.org/details/patterns-of-evidence-exodus

Sure it does. There was no exodus as told in the story due to the fact that history contradicts the story. That matters greatly and shows that the story and its source cannot be trusted. This matters.

It doesn't really matter, though and here is why. There was most likely Semitic people that were slaves in Egypt. See the documentary to see that is true. It happens that this is earlier in time than the typical date for the exodus. It wouldn't matter if some parts were contradictory to the evidence. This is true for Greek history. Greeks wrote history in a pretty fanciful way, but the events still happened, even if there was no Achilles as presented in the story.

[Clownboat]

I can only show that by arguments of the best explanation, consciousness is a metaphysical property.

Well, that is surely an odd way to admit that you cannot show your starting premise to be true. Don't be suprised by people that reject an unproven premise.

Except that is not what I said.

And yet, my words are still true. There is no way to know what is a real claim or unreal claim in the Bible outside of personal feelings.

I haven't seen anything in history that contradicts Exodus as far as what would be considered real events.

It didn't happen as told in the Bible and that is the point.
Therefore, any Christians that believes the Exodus story as told in the Bible are surely delusional then, right?

In fact, in this documentary, they show that there is a lot of evidence for the exodus story, but it happens earlier in time than previous thought- https://archive.org/details/patterns-of-evidence-exodus

That there may be some truth to mythical stories is to be expected.

It doesn't really matter, though and here is why.

It does matter that a source cannot be trusted though and you know this.

There was most likely Semitic people that were slaves in Egypt.

See, you do know this, which is why you are trying to justify some truth to the source.
Even your justification uses the term 'most likely' though. Therefore, the source for the Exodus story cannot be trusted as I claimed.

This is true for Greek history. Greeks wrote history in a pretty fanciful way, but the events still happened, even if there was no Achilles as presented in the story.

Non sequitar. It does not follow from your claim about Greeks that we should trust the source for the Exodus story.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #236]

Well, that is surely an odd way to admit that you cannot show your starting premise to be true. Don't be suprised by people that reject an unproven premise.

But that is all we have for anything we believe. Every scientific theory we have only gives us tentative knowledge. Science is always subject to change because it doesn't prove things. Even science argues for the best explanation. There are always other explanations, but science tries to limit the believability of alternative explanations until we arrive at once that seems more likely. And forthy years later, sometimes what we argued for as the best explanation changes to something else. Then we argue for why that explanation seems the best.

All we have is best explanations at any given time. If it happens at this time in human history the best explanation from consciousness is a view in which allows consciousness to exist as its own property in the world, then we are reasonable to accept it until some better explanation wins out.

And yet, my words are still true. There is no way to know what is a real claim or unreal claim in the Bible outside of personal feelings.

I don't know about this real and unreal distinction, what you mean by it exactly. In Aesops fable of the frogs and the ox, it is very real in the context of the story that the frog explodes by puffing itself up more and more. This seems impossible outside the context of the story though. But the purpose of the story is its context to teach us a moral lesson and that lesson is very real even outside the story world.

So even if some stories in the bible are not about historical events, that doesn't mean they are unreal stories because they still teach real moral lessons. Not only that, a story can be historical but exaggerated or has elements of story telling in it like a lot of Greek history.

It didn't happen as told in the Bible and that is the point.
Therefore, any Christians that believes the Exodus story as told in the Bible are surely delusional then, right?

I wouldn't say they are delusional but mistaken. When a child is convinced that Santa exists, he is not delusional.

It does matter that a source cannot be trusted though and you know this.

A source can be trusted for its intended purpose. I can trust Aesop's Fables for their intended purpose to entertain me and teach me moral lessons. The problem here is that a lot of people have forgotten the intended purpose of many of the stories in the bible.

See, you do know this, which is why you are trying to justify some truth to the source.
Even your justification uses the term 'most likely' though. Therefore, the source for the Exodus story cannot be trusted as I claimed.

This would be problematic if the intended purpose of Exodus was to be a completely, dry, factual history book.

Non sequitar. It does not follow from your claim about Greeks that we should trust the source for the Exodus story.

But it is not because I am implying that Exodus is similar to the Illiad.

[Clownboat]

But that is all we have for anything we believe. Every scientific theory we have only gives us tentative knowledge. Science is always subject to change because it doesn't prove things. Even science argues for the best explanation. There are always other explanations, but science tries to limit the believability of alternative explanations until we arrive at once that seems more likely. And forthy years later, sometimes what we argued for as the best explanation changes to something else. Then we argue for why that explanation seems the best.

Well, that is surely an odd way to admit that you cannot show your starting premise to be true. Don't be suprised by people that reject an unproven premise.

And yet, my words are still true. There is no way to know what is a real claim or unreal claim in the Bible outside of personal feelings.

I don't know about this real and unreal distinction, what you mean by it exactly.

The claim that a donkey spoke in the Bible. Is that claim about a real event?
The claim about a demigod returning to life. Is that claim about a real event?
There is no way to know.

In Aesops fable of the frogs and the ox, it is very real in the context of the story that the frog explodes by puffing itself up more and more. This seems impossible outside the context of the story though. But the purpose of the story is its context to teach us a moral lesson and that lesson is very real even outside the story world.

Matters not:
Copy/paste to save time...
The claim that a donkey spoke in the Bible. Is that claim about a real event?
The claim about a demigod returning to life. Is that claim about a real event?
There is no way to know.

That stories are told to teach lessons is not something I'm contending.

So even if some stories in the bible are not about historical events, that doesn't mean they are unreal stories because they still teach real moral lessons.

Strawman as I never made such a claim.
The claim that a donkey spoke in the Bible. Is that claim about a real event?
The claim about a demigod returning to life. Is that claim about a real event?
There is no way to know.

Not only that, a story can be historical but exaggerated or has elements of story telling in it like a lot of Greek history.

So true!
The claim that a donkey spoke in the Bible. Is that claim about a real event?
The claim about a demigod returning to life. Is that claim about a real event?
There is no way to know.

It didn't happen as told in the Bible and that is the point.
Therefore, any Christians that believes the Exodus story as told in the Bible are surely delusional then, right?

I wouldn't say they are delusional but mistaken. When a child is convinced that Santa exists, he is not delusional.

I agree, it is a mistake to believe in the Exodus story as told in the Bible much like it is a mistake to believe in a Santa that delivers presents each year.

A source can be trusted for its intended purpose. I can trust Aesop's Fables for their intended purpose to entertain me and teach me moral lessons. The problem here is that a lot of people have forgotten the intended purpose of many of the stories in the bible.

The claim that a donkey spoke in the Bible. Is that claim about a real event?
The claim about a demigod returning to life. Is that claim about a real event?
There is no way to know.

This would be problematic if the intended purpose of Exodus was to be a completely, dry, factual history book.

At one time is was. Many now know better, even some Christians are realizing this. This, like the flood is one example where we now know that the claim does not reflect reality.
Get's us right back to the donkey and the demigod returning to life. Are those claims about an event that actually happend and how can we know?

[William]

William: Are Religious Beliefs Delusional?

GM: Row your own boat! I AM Will Navigate!

Atheistic Thinker: Nothing I've learned since the decision I made that Religious Beliefs ARE Delusional, has changed my mind, but if a god being made itself known in some way that was convincing to me ... I'd be happy to flip.

William: I myself doubt that this could ever be achieved for you, due to your making it the way that it is, through your own decisions, rather than through any god failing to pay you a visit.

Any god-being: Okay Atheistic Thinker - I have risen to your challenge. You see me now. Are you ready to flip?

Atheistic Thinker: Of course not! You are simply a product of my brain which obviously is having some kind of malfunction which has caused this delusion.

Any god-being: What if I stripped you naked, pinched you by the scruff and dangled you over the everlasting hellfire and threatened to drop you in it. Would you consider flipping then?

GM: Necessity is The Mother of Invention

William: I would argue that Atheistic Thinker would continue arguing that his brain was being delusional. That even if he felt the pinch of his neck, the rising heat of the hellfire doom, the pooh running down his legs - he would cling to the belief that Religious Beliefs ARE Delusional and that he would wake up from the nightmare eventually - when his brain settled down again...and remain content not to flip...

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to William in post #239]

Atheistic Thinker: Nothing I've learned since the decision I made that Religious Beliefs ARE Delusional, has changed my mind, but if a god being made itself known in some way that was convincing to me ... I'd be happy to flip.

William: I myself doubt that this could ever be achieved for you, due to your making it the way that it is, through your own decisions, rather than through any god failing to pay you a visit.

Atheistic Thinker: Of course not! You are simply a product of my brain which obviously is having some kind of malfunction which has caused this delusion.

William: I would argue that Atheistic Thinker would continue arguing that his brain was being delusional. That even if he felt the pinch of his neck, the rising heat of the hellfire doom, the pooh running down his legs - he would cling to the belief that Religious Beliefs ARE Delusional and that he would wake up from the nightmare eventually - when his brain settled down again...and remain content not to flip...

You're obviously quoting some things I said in another thread verbatum (thread: Is it reasonable to assume a creator, post 386), and pasting them above as "Atheist Thinker", but then inserting your own words "Religions Beliefs ARE Delusional" in one of my sentences when I never said any such thing. If you're going to quote someone at least make the correct attribution, and not insert your own words to imply that person said something they didn't.