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?

[William]

[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.

Correct. In other words, I am using what you said and equating it with what atheistic thinkers think.
If your expression

"Nothing I've learned since that decision has changed my mind"

has nothing to do with your thinking all religious beliefs are delusional, then what are you attempting to convey to the reader?

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.

Were you meaning something else? Is that what you are saying?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to William in post #241]

If your expression

"Nothing I've learned since that decision has changed my mind"

has nothing to do with your thinking all religious beliefs are delusional, then what are you attempting to convey to the reader?

Someone going through a decision making process and concluding that they don't believe that gods exist is not at all equivalent to that someone making a claim that all religious beliefs are delusional. I don't know how you even made a remote connection between those two things. I said I don't believe that gods exist simply because I've never seen evidence that is convincing to me. This doesn't imply in any way that I think people who have obtained evidence that convinces them are somehow delusional.

[William]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #242]

Someone going through a decision making process and concluding that they don't believe that gods exist is not at all equivalent to that someone making a claim that all religious beliefs are delusional.

I accept that.

Would you be prepared to share your list of religious beliefs which you consider NOT being delusional?

I don't know how you even made a remote connection between those two things. I said I don't believe that gods exist simply because I've never seen evidence that is convincing to me. This doesn't imply in any way that I think people who have obtained evidence that convinces them are somehow delusional.

I was not referring to those who believe in their religious beliefs, but to atheistic thinkers who do not believe in any religious beliefs.

Are you able to share your list of religious beliefs which you believe are NOT delusional?
This would help the reader in understanding your particular position, as being different from most atheistic thinkers, who clearly think all religious beliefs are delusional.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to William in post #243]

This would help the reader in understanding your particular position, as being different from most atheistic thinkers, who clearly think all religious beliefs are delusional.

Oxford Languages:
de·lu·sion·al
adjective: delusional

"characterized by or holding idiosyncratic beliefs or impressions that are contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder."

Most "atheist thinkers" I know would not characterize anyone with religious beliefs as "delusional" as in the above definition. The phrase "contradicted by reality" could only apply if the existence of gods was proven to be false. I personally think the probability is so low (due to lack of evidence) that gods exist that I don't believe they do (ie. I'm an atheist). But I not would call my late parents or living relatives all delusional for being religious and believing in gods. They are simply convinced that they do exist, as equally as I'm convinced they do not. They may be right, or I may be right. The existence of gods has not been proved or disproved ... I am just on the side that doesn't believe in them.

[William]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #244]

Most "atheist thinkers" I know would not characterize anyone with religious beliefs as "delusional" as in the above definition.

Perhaps not in such a direct manner, but I hesitate say they do not imply something is amiss in the mental attributes of theistic thinkers.

Nonetheless, speaking for yourself, you appear to be telling the reader that you do not agree that
religious beliefs are delusional and that no one should distinguish between a learned belief in alternate reality experience phenomena and those who believe and attribute their beliefs to personal experience... as "how could we actually tell"?

I personally think the probability is so low (due to lack of evidence) that gods exist that I don't believe they do

In looking at the evidence [the physical reality], I have seen no way in which to distinguish our reality experience from a complex simulation created by a being/beings we might regard [from our human state within the created thing] as being god/gods, what have you distinguished which has led you to your conclusion that we do not exist within a created thing?

But I not would call my late parents or living relatives all delusional for being religious and believing in gods. They are simply convinced that they do exist, as equally as I'm convinced they do not. They may be right, or I may be right. The existence of gods has not been proved or disproved ... I am just on the side that doesn't believe in them.

I suppose that believing in something because one has experienced said something, is less problematic than not believing in something because one has not experienced it, and deciding to believe in something contrary to that instead.

It appears to me that you are almost but not quite - an agnostic, and probably would be if you didn't hold beliefs about the subject.

As JK wrote recently; "You expose my atheism for the agnosticism it really is." although such realization doesn't appear to shift atheistic thinkers enough for them to become agnostic thinkers.

Something about atheistic belief prevents such thinkers from being more agnostic in their overall expressions...I will continue to keep investigating.

[Difflugia]

As JK wrote recently; "You expose my atheism for the agnosticism it really is." although such realization doesn't appear to shift atheistic thinkers enough for them to become agnostic thinkers.

Whether atheism is really agnosticism is dependent on whether "you can't prove gods aren't real" is a valid argument. I'm agnostic about gods in the same way that I'm agnostic about leprechauns, ghosts, and the rest of the made-up things. I can't prove that cars don't need gremlin magic to run, so I'm agnostic about that in the same sense I'm agnostic about gods, but in every practical sense, I believe that the principles of the internal combustion engine are sufficient.

Something about atheistic belief prevents such thinkers from being more agnostic in their overall expressions...I will continue to keep investigating.

My guess is that it's practice doing math with and visualizing very big and very small numbers.

[William]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #246]

I suppose that believing in something because one has experienced said something, is less problematic than not believing in something because one has not experienced it, and deciding to believe in something contrary to that instead.

It appears to me that you are almost but not quite - an agnostic, and probably would be if you didn't hold beliefs about the subject.

As JK wrote recently; "You expose my atheism for the agnosticism it really is." although such realization doesn't appear to shift atheistic thinkers enough for them to become agnostic thinkers.

Whether atheism is really agnosticism is dependent on whether "you can't prove gods aren't real" is a valid argument.

Perhaps that is why JK made that expression...

I'm agnostic about gods in the same way that I'm agnostic about leprechauns, ghosts, and the rest of the made-up things.

What does that mean?

I can't prove that cars don't need gremlin magic to run, so I'm agnostic about that in the same sense I'm agnostic about gods, but in every practical sense, I believe that the principles of the internal combustion engine are sufficient.

From my own studies of theology and other related subjects, for me to use /accept such an analogy as you have above, would be akin to showing how misinformed I would be about the entire subject.

Typically, such misinformed expression regularly comes from atheistic thinkers...

Something about atheistic belief prevents such thinkers from being more agnostic in their overall expressions...I will continue to keep investigating.

My guess is that it's practice doing math with and visualizing very big and very small numbers.

Misdirection detected...I am referring to atheistic thinking, not quantum mathematics.

[Difflugia]

I'm agnostic about gods in the same way that I'm agnostic about leprechauns, ghosts, and the rest of the made-up things.

What does that mean?

You or I can make up any number of things that aren't logical impossibilities and can't be disproven despite having no objective reason to believe in them. To be consistent, I must be exactly as open to their existence as I am to that of any god, which lies somewhere between "agnostic" and "atheist" depending on one's definition. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a pointed illustration of that principle.

I can't prove that cars don't need gremlin magic to run, so I'm agnostic about that in the same sense I'm agnostic about gods, but in every practical sense, I believe that the principles of the internal combustion engine are sufficient.

From my own studies of theology and other related subjects, for me to use /accept such an analogy as you have above, would be akin to showing how misinformed I would be about the entire subject.

I believe the opposite is true. Theology as a subject presupposes the existence of the gods and is the exercise of imagining how the gods must interact with the world. The equivalent of theology isn't whether or not I believe that cars need gremlin magic, but imagining how such gremlin magic would work once one decides that they, in fact, do. It's like watching Star Trek. Few people seriously believe that the transporter and dilithium crystals are real. Many people willingly suspend disbelief, though, and engage in the theology of how such things would work in-universe.

Typically, such misinformed expression regularly comes from atheistic thinkers...

Whatever helps you sleep.

Misdirection detected...I am referring to atheistic thinking, not quantum mathematics.

I wasn't referring to quantum mechanics, but to the principles of statistical analysis. It gets back to whether "you can't prove it's not" is a valid argument. If one's only evidence for a concept is "you can't prove it's not," then that concept is competing with every other idea within the same space. "It's possible" is tiny. "All possible things" is vast. Absent any other evidence, the probability of gods is the first divided by the second. To accurately evaluate such concepts requires an understanding of things like asymptotes and comparing orders of infinity.

[William]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #248]

You or I can make up any number of things that aren't logical impossibilities and can't be disproven despite having no objective reason to believe in them. To be consistent, I must be exactly as open to their existence as I am to that of any god, which lies somewhere between "agnostic" and "atheist" depending on one's definition. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a pointed illustration of that principle.

The FSM as well as the other things you mentioned, are known imagery. The ghost dressed, as it were.

How does any actual invisible entity fit in with these ones which have been made conceptionally visible?

I have not found/been shown a way to fit these things together, so have to remain agnostically positioned for the time being, re the subject.

I believe the opposite is true.

Leprechaun: O'Reilly?

Theology as a subject presupposes the existence of the gods and is the exercise of imagining how the gods must interact with the world.

That is an expression I know to be misinformation. Not to say that I do not understand the process which provide folk with a means of jumping to such a conclusion, but the evidence clearly shows the presumption is incorrect.

The equivalent of theology isn't whether or not I believe that cars need gremlin magic, but imagining how such gremlin magic would work once one decides that they, in fact, do.

You are speaking about a subset of overall theology, [specifically, religion] not of theology itself.

It's like watching Star Trek. Few people seriously believe that the transporter and dilithium crystals are real.

Or that the Star Trek universe actually exists...

Many people willingly suspend disbelief, though, and engage in the theology of how such things would work in-universe.

Adequately explaining religion. Shall we agree that religion is just a a subset of Theology and not conflate the two?

The willing to believers are the easier to discredit re beliefs, since beliefs [all beliefs not just theistic based ones] are always easier to show where misinformation derives.

Typically, such misinformed expression regularly comes from atheistic thinkers...

Whatever helps you sleep.

Moving the goalposts won't help your failing argument, Difflugia.

Rather, think about expressing differently and keeping to the subject at hand.
[Not that I am saying that recognition of misinformation doesn't contribute to my ability to drop into sleep without difficulty...but that it is besides the point.]

Misdirection detected...I am referring to atheistic thinking, not quantum mathematics.

I wasn't referring to quantum mechanics, but to the principles of statistical analysis.

All you said was;

doing math with and visualizing very big and very small numbers.

QM fits that script

It gets back to whether "you can't prove it's not" is a valid argument.

From an agnostic position, yes, it is a valid argument.

If one's only evidence for a concept is "you can't prove it's not," then that concept is competing with every other idea within the same space.

Have you not hear the news!? Spacetime is doomed!

The concept I focus on is the one which say's we may be existing within a creation/created thing.

Spacetime - being shown by quantum mathematicians, to being NOT fundamental to what we have been referring to as "Reality" - shows us that our answers are not to be found simply in the observing of our current situation re Spacetime.

This does not mean that we have to claim that the FSM or any other conceptual image dreamed up is the fundamental reason for why we exist within Spacetime, but that Spacetime is not the reason for its own existence.

"It's possible" is tiny. "All possible things" is vast.

Agnostically speaking, we therefore have some sorting out to do to - perhaps - find answers in the middle.
What we best not do is form beliefs, either for or against...

Absent any other evidence, the probability of gods is the first divided by the second. To accurately evaluate such concepts requires an understanding of things like asymptotes and comparing orders of infinity.

Can these disciplines show us that QM is mistaken, and that Spacetime is fundamental to itself?

If not, then they are not much use to us re the question "Do we exist within a created thing?"

Agreed?