Is It Really A Delusion?

[ShallowByThyGame]

This series covers a lot of this.

 

Were the Aztecs delusional when they sacrificed virgins on top of the temple to ensure a good harvest?

 

Just because you feel something, doesn't mean that that feeling exists outside of your own mind. When someone loses an arm, they often feel like there are pains where the hand used to be, yet when they look, it is still gone.

[Vixentrox]

Kathlene knows better. She's been here long enough to know these things. She even admits she's knows the sort of answers she'll get. I really wonder why she bothers asking because she refuses to engage her brain when it comes to her imaginary boyfriend.

[Heimdall]

I guess it depends on what you mean by "Chinese", kuoyu (national language or Mandarin) or any of the myriad dialects within the People's Republic. The current estimate for the population of mainland China is about 1.5 billion folks, all whom speak some form of Chinese (and most speak kuoyu)...then we have to count the ethnic Chinese spread out over the world...although I doubt anyone can actually prove it, I imagine "Chinese" is the most spoken language(s) in the world. - Heimdall

[Phanta]

"Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds" by Charles Mackay, published 1841, contains a couple of real stories about mass delusions. One of them is the South Sea Company bubble, and another is the Dutch Tupil mania. What's interesting is that these manias described from history are very much similar to the housing bubble and the stock bubbles in the past. People go crazy over one single thing, a fad that has its own power and energy, and people just buy into it faster than I can type this sentence. What I'm talking about is: people can go delusional in masses. It's a fact. It has been observed, studied, and documented time and time again.

 

No kidding. I understood this pull unconsciously as a child, and learned about crowd mentality studies in high school, and so guarded my mind from them, especially where emotions are being manipulated. Watching Benny Hinn on youtube is fascinating. He hypnotizes thousands with a sweep of his hand, after priming the minds with music and vocal inflection and promises and mystical stories. My excursion to a small Pentecostal church was a smaller scale of the same. While the relaxation mechanisms chilled me out for sure, I didn't get all floaty and hands-up-in-the-air like the rest of them.

 

Then... the cold reception I received from the Pastor when I approached him after the sermon to warmly affirm the effect one of his statements was having on my thinking (I was a guest, after all, and felt it decent to speak positively on a commonality before taking my leave). He wouldn't even look at me. I've never had a pastor behave so coldly to a newcomer, and there were only ten or so people in the audience. Weird.

 

I can only guess he was disturbed by the fact he couldn't zone me out like he could the rest of them. He seemed a bit unbalanced during the sermon, his voice going way way up and stern and forceful and then suddenly getting really small, like a little boy voice who is asking for just a little more candy please. I didn't know what to make of it, but I see more talented preachers using the technique to play with the emotions of those in the pews.

 

Fascinating, but weird. And big-time not for me. I don't want anyone messing in my head like that.

 

Phanta

[Legion]

Reality is not decided by popular vote.

Consensus does not imply correctness.

[Dhampir]

I guess it depends on what you mean by "Chinese", kuoyu (national language or Mandarin) or any of the myriad dialects within the People's Republic. The current estimate for the population of mainland China is about 1.5 billion folks, all whom speak some form of Chinese (and most speak kuoyu)...then we have to count the ethnic Chinese spread out over the world...although I doubt anyone can actually prove it, I imagine "Chinese" is the most spoken language(s) in the world. - Heimdall

 

Considering there are more English speaking people in China than in the U.S., I'd say that English is the most spoken language.

[mako]

Considering there are more English speaking people in China than in the U.S., I'd say that English is the most spoken language.

I would say that considering those Chinese that speak English (surely less that 40% of the 1,500,000,000 Chinese on the mainland) also speak Chinese of one type or another, I wouldn't think that really has any bearing on the matter - there are probably more Chinese speakers than English speakers, just from sheer numbers

[Ouroboros]

I read somewhere that only 16% of the Chinese know some English, and most of them know very little.

[Vigile]

I read somewhere that only 16% of the Chinese know some English, and most of them know very little.

 

I'm surprised it's that high. No where near 16% of the Russians speak English. It seems like the only reason people in China would need it is if they work for an import/export firm in sales or management. That can't be too many in the whole scheme of things.

 

English is, though, no doubt the most widely used language for inter foreign communication, hands down.

[Ouroboros]

English is, though, no doubt the most widely used language for inter foreign communication, hands down.

But is it if you keep your hands up?

 

 

 

(Why do I hear so many sounds of face-palms!?)

[Kuroikaze]

 

Do you guys really believe that a billion people on this earth are delusional for believing in Jesus?

 

I am not sure I would use the word delusional, but I do believe they are wrong.

 

Why is it then, or how is it that people get saved and have the christian experience?

How do you explain that christians actually WANT to worship God and enjoy it and love him?

How do you explain the tears that flow when some people worship? How is it that I have had deep healing in my spirit by having emotional things broken in me by God?

 

People in all sorts of religions have these same experiences. How do you know they are wrong? Most of them contradict christianity, so if IT is true they must be false.

 

This is just an emotional plea. Emotions match our perceptions not necessarily reality.

 

My feelings from this site is that people think christians are forced to worship god or whatever. How do you explain when that is not the case, that christians find pleasure in this and deep spiritual nourishment and want to show others how to find this peace too? If God is this big bad evil thing you guys make him out to be, why are there a hundreds other stories that counter that He is not? Who is right???

 

Obviously I am right

 

Your argument actually supports my claim that god simply does not exist. Each person gets the god they imagine is there, you see this sappy lovey dovey god because it is what you want to see.

 

Are you seriously saying that all christians are delusional and make these experiences up themselves? Are you saying that not only christians but three quarters of humanity that seek God and spiritual experiences are mentally ill?

 

argumentum ad populum. Besides I never said mentally ill. Read up on the concept of "compartmentalization" Behaving illogically is not the same as being insane.

 

Ive been mulling this over in my head a lot in the past few days. There is either a spiritual world out there or there is not. I could never doubt the experiences I have had as mere coincidence, or something I made up. There are just too many of them, that have had positive effects, and some that No-One else has ever known about, but contributed to it in some way.

 

YOUR personal experiences are not good enough for me.

 

Another question or thought I would like to put out there. Now please don't get me wrong, I know christians do wrong and do evil. What I would like to envisage, is what would our world look like if there was no religion in it whatsover. What would the world look like? just curious here. Would evil reign in it? well I guess you could say a lot of evil reigns in it already. Do christians fulfill a purpose on this earth, or are they just as normal and behave like your everyday Joe? I think the plan was that God would have a people that were filled with his spirit growing in holiness in Him, which by the way is a lifetime journey. People that would be salt of this earth and light for the darkness. Do christians fulfill this? Mmm not always. I think if anything we irritate and bug most of humanity with out narrowmindness. Is this the purpose of the light in the dark then that God had in mind...to show humanity a higher way of living?

 

The world would probably be the same. My issue is not with religion specifically, but with building ones beliefs on illogical grounds, if religion was gone it would not stop people from holding incorrect beliefs. There are plenty of stupid ideas out there which are not religious in nature.

 

Christians ARE normal everyday Joe's, Christians on average are no better or worse than anyone else as far as I can tell, and they are hardly the only irritating or narrow minded group out there, you give yourselves too much credit, you are NOT special

 

Higher way of living? PFFFTTT

[RankStranger]

Ok folks, Im here again with a question or few.

 

Do you guys really believe that 1.57 billion people on this earth are delusional for believing in Allah?

 

Why is it then, or how is it that people convert and have the Muslim experience?

How do you explain that muslims actually WANT to worship Allah and enjoy it and love him?

 

blah

 

blah.

[ColorMixer]

Do you guys really believe that a billion people on this earth are delusional for believing in Jesus?

 

Where does that number come from? Is it accurate? Do they all believe in Jesus in the same way? I for example am willing to believe he may have been a historical person, so I believe in him, but I don't believe that he was crucified for my "sins".

 

Why is it then, or how is it that people get saved and have the christian experience?

How do you explain that christians actually WANT to worship God and enjoy it and love him?

How do you explain the tears that flow when some people worship? How is it that I have had deep healing in my spirit by having emotional things broken in me by God?

 

I had the experience. I wasn't raised in church. I WANTED to worship the Judeo-Christian God and enjoy it. I experienced very emotional worship and prayer and "spiritual healing". But I don't believe in Christianity now. The experiences and everything I had were real, but because I was at a church camp, of course those feelings needed to be interpreted as the God of the bible and nothing else. I've had experiences outside of Christianity. I had serious emotional issues when I first started college. I hated myself, I had no friends etc. I was lonely. I filled my life with xianity to try and fill that void. But I realized that I was just being weak and not willing to take control of my life and stand up for myself. My internal dialogue now that I have left xianity is better than it has ever been. At the time I needed to believe in some higher power to deal with the shit I was in, but now I don't.

 

I don't need to explain other people, as it will be different on a case by case basis, but I would imagine that people were like me. They are trying to cope with serious emotional stuff, so they fill that with some kind of loving God who wants to bless them forever and ever. If they were never told about the Judeo-Christian God, do you think they would believe in him? I would be that they would make up some kind of God, it's just that their christian friends probably told them all the goodies of the gospel and in their time of need they latched on to that.

 

My feelings from this site is that people think christians are forced to worship god or whatever. How do you explain when that is not the case, that christians find pleasure in this and deep spiritual nourishment and want to show others how to find this peace too?

 

I'm sorry if most people feel that way, but I certainly don't think they are forced. I doubt most people on this site feel this way, but we're dealing in generalizations which suck. What about people who find spiritual nourishment outside of xianity? People DO find peace outside of xianity you know.

 

If God is this big bad evil thing you guys make him out to be, why are there a hundreds other stories that counter that He is not? Who is right???

 

What do you mean? Again, since you're generalizing it kind of weakens what you are saying. What stories counter that he is bad? You mean the stories where people attribute good things to god but attribute bad things to man? The stories like where one child is saved when a whole city is destroyed? Why forget about all of the other people that died and focus on the one little girl?

 

Stories can be made to say whatever the person feels like saying. They can be twisted... so citing stories as evidence of a good god doesn't really stand up.

 

Are you seriously saying that all christians are delusional and make these experiences up themselves? Are you saying that not only christians but three quarters of humanity that seek God and spiritual experiences are mentally ill?

 

I don't think they are mentally ill, I think that they are delusional however in that they are fooling themselves and interpreting these experiences how they see fit. I think the experiences may be real, but experiences must be scrutinized and not so easily attributed to their notion of a god.

 

Ive been mulling this over in my head a lot in the past few days. There is either a spiritual world out there or there is not. I could never doubt the experiences I have had as mere coincidence, or something I made up. There are just too many of them, that have had positive effects, and some that No-One else has ever known about, but contributed to it in some way.

 

Why can you never doubt that they are coincidence? When does a coincidence actually become something that is not coincidence? You have to draw the line somewhere. Where do you draw it? I'd say people usually draw it where they WANT god to be, not where he actually would be (if he existed).

 

Another question or thought I would like to put out there. Now please don't get me wrong, I know christians do wrong and do evil. What I would like to envisage, is what would our world look like if there was no religion in it whatsover. What would the world look like? just curious here. Would evil reign in it? well I guess you could say a lot of evil reigns in it already. Do christians fulfill a purpose on this earth, or are they just as normal and behave like your everyday Joe? I think the plan was that God would have a people that were filled with his spirit growing in holiness in Him, which by the way is a lifetime journey. People that would be salt of this earth and light for the darkness. Do christians fulfill this? Mmm not always. I think if anything we irritate and bug most of humanity with out narrowmindness. Is this the purpose of the light in the dark then that God had in mind...to show humanity a higher way of living?

 

What are you saying exactly? I think if there weren't religions the world would be a better place. For the supposed good religions do, there is a lot of bad. Think about it. If everyone was rationally thinking and actually had good reasons for believing what they do, I'd wager that there would be less polarization and more cooperation. Religion and dogma is like bad politics. You're either with us or against us. When you have things like religion, being as dogmatic as they are, there is no middle ground. You can claim the middle ground, but then you have fundamentalists saying things like "you people aren't real xians, burn them." Societies that deal in absolutes are dangerous.

 

Im pretty sure I know what most of the answers will be, but I am curious to see what you think about the delusional and mentally ill argument, lol.

 

Glad you come to the table with prior notions about us godless people.

[ColorMixer]

Kathlene knows better. She's been here long enough to know these things. She even admits she's knows the sort of answers she'll get. I really wonder why she bothers asking because she refuses to engage her brain when it comes to her imaginary boyfriend.

 

You know Kathlene, I've wondered, after reading a lot of your old posts, are you sure you fully believe xianity? Since you were one, but then you left it but you turned back to it. I have a feeling that you aren't truly as solid in xianity as you may say you are, though I will admit thats fully speculative on my part.

 

Are you having a conflict within your self? I do not mean this as a personal insult, but from what I've read you sound like you do not have a strong sense of "self". What I mean is that it seems like you flip flopped back and forth willy-nilly, not really considering where you actually stood on things.

 

I don't want to make a bunch of assumptions, but I do wonder what you are seeking here.

[Mriana]

She could be a liberal Xian- Lutheran, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, etc. There are many Evangelical Fundies who do not believe the more liberal Xians and churches are Xians and if you are looking at it from that POV, then you may wonder if they really are Xians, esp if they waver a lot. There are those from the Center for Progressive Christianity, which Spong helped to start, that more Conservative Xians do not believe are Xian. Hell there are Conservative Episcopalians who don't believe the liberal Episcopalians are adhering to Xianity. So there you go. It seems to me everyone points fingers. IMO, if one says they are Xian that settles it. Now the type of Xian they are is the question- if they are Fundamgelicals, I want nothing to do with them. I don't care much for Conservatives. I can deal with liberals though.

[insanezenmistress]

I also did not want to be tainted by the previous posters and try to answer you by initial reactions.....mind if i try to make with the fancy in HTML?....

 

 

 

Ok folks, Im here again with a question or few.

 

Do you guys really believe that a billion people on this earth are delusional for believing in Jesus?

 

 

Or a FEW!? dang nab it you know darn well i cant keep it short and sweet.But i do love questions. Are all the humans deluded... yes. We are all born in ignorance and it is conciderd morally proper to keep learning to over come our ignorance. So wether we believe in Jesus or Shiva, we all have our delusions.

 

 

Why is it then, or how is it that people get saved and have the christian experience?

How do you explain that christians actually WANT to worship God and enjoy it and love him?

 

What is "Christian Experience". It may be the expression of our sonship with the living God. Or good ole human compassion, wisdom and grand nobility. Is this "Chrisitan experience" one of struggle? Shall we suffer what is left behind of the persecution of christ? Some Denominations think so.

 

"Christian experience" is to feel in touch with what is most important to yourself with in some kind of biblical context. Anyone can live the CE, but a follower of the lord might always be continuing his fearless journey, even if god doesnt stand up (er bow) to logic. It is a matter of preception....and delusion.

 

 

It is not formed of doctrines or obedience or prayer...but of fully living life.

People who can concieve a perfect god and or self or group, or a blanketed reaction to deciet with anger...are seeing their higest notion of the thing that is diety. It is a personal thing.

 

 

 

Another question or thought I would like to put out there. *snip* I think the plan was that God would have a people that were filled with his spirit growing in holiness in Him, which by the way is a lifetime journey. People that would be salt of this earth and light for the darkness. Do christians fulfill this? Mmm not always. I think if anything we irritate and bug most of humanity with out narrowmindness. Is this the purpose of the light in the dark then that God had in mind...to show humanity a higher way of living?

 

Your thoughts?

 

 

i think it is in our nature to rebell and thru rebellion, grow in knowledge .. i think the thing that would be god is an iconic "example" to ourselves of what a more perfected self would be. Any image of god is automatically a thing of idolitoy. Perhaps the bible is telling us something when it teaches us to have no graven image before him.

 

but to the credit of the non god types, and the cosmic disbris denyrs....Their not needing a mental crutch means they want to work it out for themselvs, not be told. So even, if the thing-IT god gave them a direct reaction, the next move is to test it. and i dont think any real god should have a problem with that.

 

But many people still bow in submission to the gods that use fear...and athority... two very limited methods of logic.

 

Miss Kathline wants to know 'what if her god is not that "bad god"'.

I say your god is as your god does. If he is not like the bible one, chances are he is fairly decent. behold.... test all spirits hold fast that which is good.

 

izm

[lonelee]

Do you guys really believe that a billion people on this earth are delusional for believing in Jesus?

There are over a billion Muslims in the world today. Are they all delusional for believing that they will have 14 virgins in the afterlife if they were good martyrs for Allah?

 

Why is it then, or how is it that people get saved and have the christian experience?

How do you explain that christians actually WANT to worship God and enjoy it and love him?

How do you explain the tears that flow when some people worship? How is it that I have had deep healing in my spirit by having emotional things broken in me by God?

Every other faith group has these experiences, or they would have no reason to stay in the faith. Jews, Muslims, J Dubs, Mormons, Hindus and all other religious group "feels" the power of their god. How is it they have this experience if they are not all worshiping the one true god?

 

My feelings from this site is that people think christians are forced to worship god or whatever. How do you explain when that is not the case, that christians find pleasure in this and deep spiritual nourishment and want to show others how to find this peace too? If God is this big bad evil thing you guys make him out to be, why are there a hundreds other stories that counter that He is not? Who is right???

I quite enjoyed worshiping Christ as God. I felt a sense of satisfaction and self-worth. But I was once blinded by the indoctrination of the church. The church showed me what they wanted me to see. I didn't see this god as a "big bad evil thing" until I started reading my bible without the lens of the church or a bible study guide. Then I saw this god as something else...something I hadn't been told about. Something I was sheltered from.

 

Are you seriously saying that all christians are delusional and make these experiences up themselves? Are you saying that not only christians but three quarters of humanity that seek God and spiritual experiences are mentally ill?

I believe these experiences are made up. I've talked to a number of people who admitted they faked speaking in tongues, or they simply moved around because everyone else was. But deep down inside, they didn't really feel anything external. It was all internal. Just as all other faith groups feel the same thing. Allah speaks to the Muslims and they experience his power. Yahweh assures the Jews that the Christians are wrong in worshiping Jesus. But the best example I can give you is me. I truly believed I felt the power of the holy spirit in my life. I felt her power when I prayed. I felt her power when I needed council. I felt her move through my life as a real presence, and that's what kept me going for over 25 years. Then one day (literally, one day) I felt the holy spirit comforting me with a particular emotional pain I was having. And I just knew everything was going to be alright. And then I got hit with the horrible news that everything was not alright. That day, my eyes were opened. I realized that I had fashioned these feelings for myself all these years. And when sometimes things didn't go as I had expected, I simply found a way to rationalize it away. But not on this day. This day was different. I've seen life much clearer since that day.

[ContraBardus]

I would simply answer this with posting the definition of delusion, which Kathleen obviously did not consider when posting her question.

 

I would also add that delusion -is- a form of mental illness. There's no pussyfooting around it. It's fairly common, and usually mild in nature, but a mental illness it is none the less.

 

No point in sugar coating it. Christianity is delusional, and delusion is a mental illness. I think some of us just don't want to seem rude.

 

It's not being a sociopath or psychopath, or being deranged to the point of batshit insanity...most of the time. We all know there are a bit more than a few who really are that bad. [Westborough anyone? The Creationist Museum? Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort? Remember Palin's 'Protection from Witches' video? George W and being made President by 'God'? There's quite a few others, but those are just off the top of my head.]

 

So, yes. Christians are both delusional and mentally ill. It's a fairly common affliction and all. It's just a matter of the severity it afflicts an individual. Some have it worse than others, but all of them indeed have it to some extent.

 

It could be argued that all of us are a little crazy, but not really that Christians aren't delusional or mentally ill to some extent for their irrational beliefs. They meet the textbook definition of the term after all.

 

As stated by others, majority does not equal correct. A majority of the world once believed the world was flat and that the sun revolved around us as well. Using logical fallacy to bolster one's arguments never works out well here. We get on each other for that sort of thing, so it's not reasonable to expect us to not call out Christians on it.

 

Also, according to George Webber's 1997 estimates, English is the second most commonly spoken language on the planet at around 480 million, with 330 million native speakers.

 

It's the second most commonly spoken second language at around 150 million. French is first, at 190 million. [French has a much lower native speaking population at around 75 million.]

 

Mandarin is the most common though, with 1.12 billion speakers worldwide. With 1.1 billion native speakers with 20 million using it as a second language.

 

Another poll puts Mandarin at 1.05 billion, and English at 510 million.

 

It's a safe bet to say that Mandarin is first, and English is second by a wide margin. Every poll I've seen puts these two languages in the same places in the first and second slots. Hindu/Urdu or Spanish take up the third and fourth spots, but often switch places in the rankings.

[Mriana]

I would simply answer this with posting the definition of delusion, which Kathleen obviously did not consider when posting her question.

 

I would also add that delusion -is- a form of mental illness. There's no pussyfooting around it. It's fairly common, and usually mild in nature, but a mental illness it is none the less.

 

No point in sugar coating it. Christianity is delusional, and delusion is a mental illness. I think some of us just don't want to seem rude.

 

It's not being a sociopath or psychopath, or being deranged to the point of batshit insanity...most of the time. We all know there are a bit more than a few who really are that bad. [Westborough anyone? The Creationist Museum? Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort? Remember Palin's 'Protection from Witches' video? George W and being made President by 'God'? There's quite a few others, but those are just off the top of my head.]

 

So, yes. Christians are both delusional and mentally ill. It's a fairly common affliction and all. It's just a matter of the severity it afflicts an individual. Some have it worse than others, but all of them indeed have it to some extent.

 

It could be argued that all of us are a little crazy, but not really that Christians aren't delusional or mentally ill to some extent for their irrational beliefs. They meet the textbook definition of the term after all.

 

As stated by others, majority does not equal correct. A majority of the world once believed the world was flat and that the sun revolved around us as well. Using logical fallacy to bolster one's arguments never works out well here. We get on each other for that sort of thing, so it's not reasonable to expect us to not call out Christians on it.

 

Also, according to George Webber's 1997 estimates, English is the second most commonly spoken language on the planet at around 480 million, with 330 million native speakers.

 

It's the second most commonly spoken second language at around 150 million. French is first, at 190 million. [French has a much lower native speaking population at around 75 million.]

 

Mandarin is the most common though, with 1.12 billion speakers worldwide. With 1.1 billion native speakers with 20 million using it as a second language.

 

Another poll puts Mandarin at 1.05 billion, and English at 510 million.

 

It's a safe bet to say that Mandarin is first, and English is second by a wide margin. Every poll I've seen puts these two languages in the same places in the first and second slots. Hindu/Urdu or Spanish take up the third and fourth spots, but often switch places in the rankings.

 

And mental illness has a genetic component, however, there is no longer a need for this particular gene and it would seem there is a growing number of people losing this potential to fall for superstitious ideology such as Xianity. Either that the delusional gene can be overrode with education. I'm not sure what it is that has caused the increase in non-theism.

[Antlerman]

Ok folks, Im here again with a question or few.

 

Do you guys really believe that a billion people on this earth are delusional for believing in Jesus?

Interesting. I just posted a reply to this question elsewhere moments ago before seeing this. I'll respond quoting what I just posted there:

 

On a rational and reasoned level, one guided by a spirit of mutual respect for the validity of having multiple points of view, recognizing the spirit of manipulation of emotions through charged political rhetoric (such as saying those who believe in God are "Delusional") as in fact not exercising Reason and Rationality at all; that Reason and Rationality are themselves beyond just pure dispassionate Logic, but include the whole person, their heart, the hopes, their dreams, their love, etc. What is needed to get us there? Strength of spirit in an embrace of Reason, first recognizing the nature of who we are as humans and why we have used symbols and myths, and that they are in fact a part of us in our development. Not a bunch of good logic arguments from apologists, secular or religious, about who has the real Truth (meaning plain, flat facts).

 

I will start out by stating, I have not actually read any books by the new Atheists, neither am I particularly interested in doing so at this time. So I don't feel particularly qualified to judged how charged with rhetoric they may be. As to the whole matter of calling people delusional, for at least ma and the people whom I associated with, I would consider the label of delusional to be appropriate, at least with respect to our God belief, in that we would hold onto our believes in God, irregardless of evidence to the contrary,

 

de•lu•sion

...

4. Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.

 

dictionary.reference.com

I am hoping reason will prevail here. No disrespect meant, but that is a misapplication of a psychiatric diagnosis when applied to a sociological system. Truly. In a sense, it’s like quote mining to take it out of context and apply it to ‘normal’ people. It certainly is not valid to apply to religious systems, and use a psychiatric use of the word that way. A delusion would be pathology, not a norm.

 

You would have to say that every person who lived before the Enlightenment were psychiatrically diagnosable as “delusional”!! That is absurd. No. Again, no. Belief in God is not a mental illness! You, Dawkins, or anyone, cannot legitimately call symbolic thinking as delusional. Frameworks of relating to reality are far more complex and nuanced than just navigating about like a fact/false equation like a computer.

 

I like how the developmental psychologist John Broughton put it, “Reality is defined by the coherence of the interpretive framework.” Is a mythological framework incoherent? No. It is a coherent framework, regardless of it having transcendent symbols floating about in it. Those being there do not disqualify it as constituting a valid framework of reality for people, and in fact as such, denies it being a delusion. Those symbols are part of the ‘coherence of the interpretive framework’. That constitutes reality, not delusion.

 

Does that make sense?

 

Now, you can argue that is not coherent any longer because our interpretive framework of the world has changed and is presenting challenges to the mythological framework, and I would agree with you. And that is a fact. But it is still not a case of being delusional to live with a conflict, even in denial, of challenges to your adopted social system. Delusion is an individual thing – outside a social context. Being part of a social system, a mythological system that is struggling to remain cohesive and continue to offer a valid interpretive framework to define reality for its participants, again does not qualify as delusion.

 

The only way that word has any meaning when used against religious thought, is as a pejorative remark that says more about the person saying it (meaning Dawkins). I hear it like an adolescent calling a 8 year old “stupid”, because he is trying to define himself as “not a child anymore”, rather than legitimately using mature thinking.

 

So in short, no it is not delusional, or even "deluded" thinking to adopt a religious belief system. If we can use the term legitimately to describe symbolic religious thought as delusional because it doesn't face "reality" (as defined by ones system, regardless of which system), then the religious can equally use the term "delusional" to the rationalist materialist for "deluding" himself into thinking that there is nothing more to life than just a deterministic machine. And moreover, I could use the term to describe both the religionist and the rationalist for being "delusional" to not recognize the validity of each others points of view and making a case of "I'm right... No, I'm right". But I won't. I don't see any value in it.

 

No matter how you want to try to validate the use of "delusional" in an ideological battle, it truly boils down to one thing: A politically charged pejorative. It is not a valid use of the word, and does nothing to further any rational, reasonable understanding.

[Antlerman]

Ive been mulling this over in my head a lot in the past few days. There is either a spiritual world out there or there is not.

You actually are making a number of other points, outside the use of the word 'delusional' being applied to people who believe in God. I'll address of couple of interest here.

 

Why do you make this an "either this, or that", equation? Are there no other possibilities, other ways of understanding this which don't limit it so much on this level? I'm going to challenge you a little here.

 

One thing I notice is you say "out there". Why is that world "out there"? Why can't it be "in here", that it is a part of our nature? For someone who feels 'reconciled to God', why should you speak of it as "out there"? Reconciled would be just that, your nature becoming God's nature. It no longer would be "out there".

 

What I hear in this language is imagining our spiritual nature as a world apart from us, externalizing it, mythologizing it as some celestial plane above and removed from us in order to talk about it, to look at it, and through that to get in touch with it within ourselves. But I would you challenge you to look more at what you are finding in yourself, and starting thinking less of it as being about those external entities that represent it to ourselves, to symbolically thinking humans.

 

Next point...

 

I could never doubt the experiences I have had as mere coincidence, or something I made up. There are just too many of them, that have had positive effects, and some that No-One else has ever known about, but contributed to it in some way.

I still hear in here imagining the world as a magical sphere of spiritual entities who interact with our entities here on this plane of existence. That these 'signs' are about them communicating that they exist, and that we should trust them, believe in them. In how you are wording this, this is what I hear.

 

My challenge would be for you to consider that you are interpreting positive results from looking upward, from pursuing your spiritual self, in symbolic terms. You are looking at your spiritual sense, your connection within yourself and to the world, in representational forms. You interact with these, and they with you. But these are things whose essence is in you. They are used to access that, but they are not "that" in themselves. To use Paul's mystical language,

But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

We grow up thinking symbolically. But those symbols represent something we experience, in one way or another, a thought, a feeling, an emotion, a desire, a sense of awe, of being itself... Thinking of the world as full of magical beings on higher planes of celestial transcendence, is itself symbolic of something in us, just as with everything we use language for, something transcendent in us, and as part of us, the world by extension the whole of existence, of Being.

 

Do I believe in God? I believe in Being, in all its states of awareness. Is that God? I could call it that. But the symbols themselves are not that. It is beyond that. You could call it God's God.

 

This does not deny God, it frees it to be what it is.

[florduh]

From Wiki:

 

A delusion, in everyday language, is a fixed belief that is either false, fanciful, or derived from deception. Psychiatry defines the term more specifically as a belief that is pathological (the result of an illness or illness process). As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, "incorrect" dogma, stupidity, apperception, illusion, or other effects of perception.

That is my understanding of the word. Commonly, we don't use it in the clinical sense, though psychiatrists use the same term for a pathology. Accepting the Christian mythology as your framework for what you deem to be "Truths" is one thing, but believing that a resurrected dead man "walks with me and talks with me" is a delusion, no less than is a literal belief in Xenu or Thor. Not clinical pathology, but a delusion in the common understanding of the word.

[Antlerman]

From Wiki:

 

A delusion, in everyday language, is a fixed belief that is either false, fanciful, or derived from deception. Psychiatry defines the term more specifically as a belief that is pathological (the result of an illness or illness process). As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, "incorrect" dogma, stupidity, apperception, illusion, or other effects of perception.

That is my understanding of the word. Commonly, we don't use it in the clinical sense, though psychiatrists use the same term for a pathology. Accepting the Christian mythology as your framework for what you deem to be "Truths" is one thing, but believing that a resurrected dead man "walks with me and talks with me" is a delusion, no less than is a literal belief in Xenu or Thor. Not clinical pathology, but a delusion in the common understanding of the word.

To point out, my post above was specifically in response to the psychiatric definition being offered to show that religious belief qualifies as delusion in that sense. But my problem with the use of the term is this. Whether or not you or anyone can make try to make the word fit, reasons for religious beliefs go way, way beyond common 'you've got bad information' sort of colloquial "you're delusional" talk. To use it applied to religion in that sense, comes off as nothing better than a prerogative rhetoric. If that's how someone wants to use it, then fine, but there's no way to talk about is from an analytical point of view, comparing it to 'beliefs' on the level of thinking all your co-workers think you're the most handsome man in the world.

 

Dawkins, who seems to be the one who has made this a popular rhetorical comment about religious beliefs, has impressed me from my first 10 seconds of exposure to him as a highly, overly dramatic opinionator like Rush Limbaugh, talking to areas of the humanities he has either little, exposure, interest or appreciation of, speaking as philosopher to the humanities from one, extremely narrow set of perceptions as a biologist. I don't consider a term helpful to understanding the complexities of religion, and absolutely cannot be used as a judgment of those who participate in them.

 

 

Religion may be 'outmoded', out of step, a throw-back from the past, less developed, hanging on to the past, and so on and so forth, but someone's resistance to change - or more accurately, their difficulty in transitioning to a new system of thought (which can be for a huge host of reasons, cognition being but only one of many), does not qualify as delusional. Someone emotionally resisting an idea because it makes them uncomfortable, to the point they irrationally defend their beliefs to protect them I would not call delusional thinking.

 

Someone may have absolutely valid reasons for continuing a belief in angels and gods, and fairies, and whatnot. The belief is not delusional, but in fact rational - their reasons for choosing a system that allows them to get in touch with their sense of their spiritual self, when confronted with other systems - such as those hard-core rationalists who consider spirituality, 'just so much nonsense'. So it is in fact a rational choice to pursue something in themselves which has value to them, when the alternative would be to deny it. That, is not 'delusional'. That is in fact reasonable. Please note, that objects of faith are by very definition symbolic, and to make a case they "aren't real" is an error of category. To pound the drum as Dawkins does and calling that "delusion", is in fact itself, irrational. Religious belief is categorically different.

 

And this is just one small example of why it fails as a word that has any real value in a discussion of religion, and is only seen as a pejorative.

[ContraBardus]

Ok folks, Im here again with a question or few.

 

Do you guys really believe that a billion people on this earth are delusional for believing in Jesus?

Interesting. I just posted a reply to this question elsewhere moments ago before seeing this. I'll respond quoting what I just posted there:

 

On a rational and reasoned level, one guided by a spirit of mutual respect for the validity of having multiple points of view, recognizing the spirit of manipulation of emotions through charged political rhetoric (such as saying those who believe in God are "Delusional") as in fact not exercising Reason and Rationality at all; that Reason and Rationality are themselves beyond just pure dispassionate Logic, but include the whole person, their heart, the hopes, their dreams, their love, etc. What is needed to get us there? Strength of spirit in an embrace of Reason, first recognizing the nature of who we are as humans and why we have used symbols and myths, and that they are in fact a part of us in our development. Not a bunch of good logic arguments from apologists, secular or religious, about who has the real Truth (meaning plain, flat facts).

 

I will start out by stating, I have not actually read any books by the new Atheists, neither am I particularly interested in doing so at this time. So I don't feel particularly qualified to judged how charged with rhetoric they may be. As to the whole matter of calling people delusional, for at least ma and the people whom I associated with, I would consider the label of delusional to be appropriate, at least with respect to our God belief, in that we would hold onto our believes in God, irregardless of evidence to the contrary,

 

de•lu•sion

...

4. Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.

 

dictionary.reference.com

I am hoping reason will prevail here. No disrespect meant, but that is a misapplication of a psychiatric diagnosis when applied to a sociological system. Truly. In a sense, it’s like quote mining to take it out of context and apply it to ‘normal’ people. It certainly is not valid to apply to religious systems, and use a psychiatric use of the word that way. A delusion would be pathology, not a norm.

 

You would have to say that every person who lived before the Enlightenment were psychiatrically diagnosable as “delusional”!! That is absurd. No. Again, no. Belief in God is not a mental illness! You, Dawkins, or anyone, cannot legitimately call symbolic thinking as delusional. Frameworks of relating to reality are far more complex and nuanced than just navigating about like a fact/false equation like a computer.

 

I like how the developmental psychologist John Broughton put it, “Reality is defined by the coherence of the interpretive framework.” Is a mythological framework incoherent? No. It is a coherent framework, regardless of it having transcendent symbols floating about in it. Those being there do not disqualify it as constituting a valid framework of reality for people, and in fact as such, denies it being a delusion. Those symbols are part of the ‘coherence of the interpretive framework’. That constitutes reality, not delusion.

 

Does that make sense?

 

Now, you can argue that is not coherent any longer because our interpretive framework of the world has changed and is presenting challenges to the mythological framework, and I would agree with you. And that is a fact. But it is still not a case of being delusional to live with a conflict, even in denial, of challenges to your adopted social system. Delusion is an individual thing – outside a social context. Being part of a social system, a mythological system that is struggling to remain cohesive and continue to offer a valid interpretive framework to define reality for its participants, again does not qualify as delusion.

 

The only way that word has any meaning when used against religious thought, is as a pejorative remark that says more about the person saying it (meaning Dawkins). I hear it like an adolescent calling a 8 year old “stupid”, because he is trying to define himself as “not a child anymore”, rather than legitimately using mature thinking.

 

So in short, no it is not delusional, or even "deluded" thinking to adopt a religious belief system. If we can use the term legitimately to describe symbolic religious thought as delusional because it doesn't face "reality" (as defined by ones system, regardless of which system), then the religious can equally use the term "delusional" to the rationalist materialist for "deluding" himself into thinking that there is nothing more to life than just a deterministic machine. And moreover, I could use the term to describe both the religionist and the rationalist for being "delusional" to not recognize the validity of each others points of view and making a case of "I'm right... No, I'm right". But I won't. I don't see any value in it.

 

No matter how you want to try to validate the use of "delusional" in an ideological battle, it truly boils down to one thing: A politically charged pejorative. It is not a valid use of the word, and does nothing to further any rational, reasonable understanding.

 

I understand where you're coming from here, but I also can't agree with this as correct.

 

You're basically stating that the clinical definition of delusion is in error, and that the common slang usage of the word is the correct usage, and the only one that should be considered.

 

I think that's fallacious.

 

Religious belief is delusional. Perhaps not in the sense that many people use the word in the sense of common slang, but based on the clinical definition of the term, it is indeed delusional. It is not an error to call it so.

 

It's also a mental illness. Perhaps not a severe one, but it does fall into the category of mild psychosis by it's very nature.

 

This is essentially splitting hairs between the common usage and actual definition of the term. I do understand your point, but find you are in error for brushing aside the actual clinical term and discounting it as 'unimportant' to the matter.

 

I would argue that it's in fact equally important, if not more so.

 

Most people are delusional about something. I probably am, though I'm not sure about what exactly. That's the nature of it after all.

 

Also, not everyone in the enlightened age was a theist. There have always been skeptics, agnostics, and atheists from the beginning. It's just a matter of how open one could be about it in a particular culture or age.

 

No one really exists on total logic and reasoning. We've not achieved Vulcan society standards. Everyone has a bit of psychosis in them. So I would say that everyone in the enlightened age probably was both delusional and crazy to some degree. I would challenge anyone to find someone who isn't. Even if it's not delusion itself, it's difficult to say there's anyone without some form of psychosis.

 

That being said, it's just a matter of severity. Most cases are mild, and don't really interfere with normal life. Religious people tend to be more so, the more religious, the more delusional in general.

 

I would point out that obsessively attending services out of fear that the invisible man who lives in the sky will get upset if you do not would constitute a form of OCD. Fear of having thoughts of a sexual nature for the same reason would qualify as a phobia.

 

Religion is indeed a mental illness, which often gives rise to related disorders. Most often these disorders are mild and generally not disruptive, but they do become so at times as well. Like most disorders they swing in severity over the course of a person's life. Most people don't acknowledge that, but it is the case.

 

I do understand your position here, but that doesn't change the fact that religion does indeed fit the literal definition of delusion. The definition is not in error, but the common usage perhaps is.

 

I would also say that it's very possible for the majority of a population to be afflicted by said disorder. Humans aren't as mentally stable as we'd like to delude ourselves into thinking.

 

Religion is just a common and accepted form of delusion. Being common and accepted does not change the fact that it is indeed a form of delusion though.

 

A lot of people don't like to say so because they don't like the way it sounds, or think it rude, or confuse the clinical definition with the slang definition which is more akin to 'stupid' or 'bat shit crazy'. That isn't the case though, and I'm afraid the shoe fits, so we might as well wear it.

 

@Mirana

 

I'm not saying you're wrong here. I've read about the possible existence of a 'God' gene.

 

However, not every disorder necessarily has a genetic component. Disorders can also be the result of learned or habitual behaviors. They can literally be trained into being.

 

I'm more of a mind to believe that religion as a disorder is of the second type. It's a self imposed learned behavior in general. I think the genetic component is minimal if there even is one.

 

That's still up in the air and under study though, but just by it's nature, I lean more towards it being learned rather than something that we're born with in our genes.

 

Who knows. I could be wrong about that, but just how it often comes about, teaching, repeated stimulus, forming habits over time, conditioned response, etc. I'm more inclined to think it's less genetic and more learned.

[Petrel]

I don't think it's appropriate to say that religious belief is a mental illness because the scientific community does not consider it a mental illness. Religious or cultural beliefs that have no evidence to support them are specifically excluded from the definition of delusion. Why? Because they're normal. To say that religious belief is a mental illness is to say that the whole human species is mentally ill. Maybe, we're screwed up in a lot of ways, but at that point it's not really a meaningful statement.

 

Religious beliefs derive from the way that the human brain is constructed. It's not something that's due to one gene or something that we can easily breed out. Our brains are predisposed to attribute intent and purpose to natural processes. This isn't a bad thing. If we weren't able to do this so easily, we wouldn't be as able to understand that other humans are individuals with their own distinct identities. (This is why I hypothesized elsewhere here that sociopaths might not tend to have religious beliefs, although I can't really find any research on this.) We're also predisposed to trust authority figures, a trait that has obvious evolutionary utility in a social species. So it seems natural to me that our species should tend to imagine an authority figure that made objects in the world, gave them a purpose, and is interested in bossing us around. When everyone in your social group believes in this invisible person, you're even more likely to.

 

It's more interesting why people aren't religious. The chief reason for the upsurge in disbelief in the developed world seems to be security. When people feel safe, they don't feel as great a need to explain their difficulties as the work of some agent, and don't need to imagine an invisible entity looking out for them, or a future after death when they will be happy. I was reading a paper about this recently, which unfortunately I'd have to go searching for to cite, and it made the interesting point that people abandon religious belief pretty rapidly when they feel safe, but it's likely that they would abandon religious disbelief equally quickly if the situation were to change. Most people's religiosity or lack of it is not well thought out, but casual and easily swayed given the right impetus. I would think that most of us here would be unlikely to reconvert, having been through enough stress in the deconversion to have solidly made up our minds about it. But most people don't think about religion as much, even when they're going to church three times a week.

 

The author made the point that religious belief is greater in the US than in Europe, but it's likely that life is more stressful for a lot of people in the US, with our varied demographics, unequal wealth distribution, and lack of the same type of social safety nets some European nations have. Not that I'd want to adopt all of the practices of European nations, but it is something to think about.