Is It Really A Delusion?

[Antlerman]

Subjective reality is not delusion, it is a part of the process of the interaction of the subject and objective aspects of our being.

 

When there is no objective reality behind the idea, it can be a delusion.

Operative words being "can be". It's not a rule. Context is everything.

 

Take your skyscrapter example. When a person "conceives" of a skyscraper, it is a concept, an idea, not a reality. Can you see the difference? No? Let me continue. If a man says there is a particular skyscraper in existence, and no one can see it, that is a delusion, not a concept, and not reality. There are no invisible buildings.

I can see where with example I gave you can make the distinction you have, and that would be correct. I think what I was getting at with that one example off the top of my head was that of a belief in something that is not an objective reality at that point. It's not the greatest example of what I'm trying to say.

 

What I was getting at is that once the concept is born in his mind through a vision of his imagination (dreaming big, quite literally), he then begins to interact with that mental image of his dream, his vision, and it gives him the motivations to interact with it within himself and it moves out into the world through him. It becomes objective reality, all the while it was an internal reality in his mind and heart to bring it to life.

 

But still this is only an example of how it works, and is not a direct comparrison to the objects of religious faith, such as the fairies example we’ve chosen as a minor example (I really don’t see fairies as the object of ones existential faith, such as an ultimate God may be). We’ll get to that.

 

Take your government example. Governments are made of people, and they involve people. They don't exist where there are no people. Gods, according to those who believe, are supposed to exist where there are no people (or before there were people). Governments, churches and religions have powers because of the people that support them, and those powers do not exist independent of people. In days past, when being a heretic or atheist meant death, one could not deny the power of religion or the Church, but that doesn't speak to the existence of gods as living beings existing independent of humans.

My examples of governments are that are first conceptual and idealistic realities that become objective reality through 'belief' in them. They are symbolically represented, people engage with the symbols, and they then create supporting structures that make that non-physical truth take shape in the material world. Infrastructures, roadways, systems of law enforcement, etc are all manifestations of these internal spaces.

 

When it comes to faith in God, there are hosts of symbols that people cast their eyes to to evoke the meaning of that internal space, that world that does not exist in the physical world, and through that interaction with the symbols – their belief in them, their belief in what it evokes in them through those symbols, they act on those. It does not exist ‘soley’ in their minds. And as they act on those, the truth embodied in those symbols affects the physical world and transforms it. They become physical reality.

 

The symbols of those faiths, be it the American flag or “God”, manifest the internal truths they represent through people’s participation with them. And this is important to understand. These symbols are not necessarily physical objects, such as a statue or a clothe flag, they are linguistic. And frankly those are the truly god-like symbols. Words.

 

All our words frankly are an outward representation an internal experience of perception; from the simplest, giving a symbol to the peception of what a fox is perceived by us to be, to giving a symbol to the perception of what the experience of love means. And because the physical world alone may not have a ‘love’ thing, some collection of physical matter, we symbolize it abstractly. But it is still a word, a symbol, of some inner truth, some percepetion of reality of our internal reality. Is all this coming together?

 

Now it’s at this point someone who doesn’t perceive or process that inner world the same way based on many factors, such as developmental stages for one, will chide at those at a different place or who symbols mean something to them contextually – which would in no small way express cultural contexts. This is where I hear words cast about of “delusional” thinking from one to another, citing that there is no “evidence” supporting them. “You can’t point to a “love rock” we can all objectively look at. Where is your evidence? Show me God!” Of course they can’t point to one, and they are fools to reduce it to that level (LNC), rather than try to understand the nature, the essence of what these symbols represent in us existentially.

 

As an example, take a child in a developmental study at age 6, in the preoperational stage. They are shown two glasses, one short and wise and one tall and thin. You then pour the water from the short glass into the tall glass and the child will swear the tall glass has more water. If you point out it’s the same amount of water because you just poured it directly from one glass into the next, the child will have no idea what you are talking about. “No, the tall glass has more water”, he will insist. Then if you videotape the kid doing this, and show it to him years later as he has developed into the the concrete operational stage, he will deny it is him in the video, “No one is that stupid!”, he will reason (or delusional, if you wish!). Even though that preoperative child lives in a world full of concrete operational realities, he simply cannot see them. They are ‘otherworldly’.

 

And this comes back to my point of the absurdity to call someone who sees the world at one particular level of perception, of cognition, as “delusional”. It smacks of that kid at 10 years old chiding the 6 year old (himself in the video) of being “stupid”, or “delusional”, to fit the context. Again, if we can call those who see the world through the framework of myth, symbolic representations of developing inner realities, as “delusional”, then someone at the next stage of consciouness beyond concrete operational can call them “delusional”, and so on and so forth.

 

It is not a good word to use. It is extraordinarly limited in range to address the reality of what’s going on, and is is always taken as an insult by those who are the objects of its use. It is a lacking word.

 

I really think you believe that concepts are "real" in an objective sense. You think that gods are concepts, and that they exist. I agree that gods are ideas from humans, but there is nothing about gods that exists outside of human thought and/or activity. They do not exist independent of humans.

They become manifest in the physical world, but are not the physical themselves. At which point, they are objective reality. But as subjective reality, they are only objective when manifest materially. Culture is not objective, but its forms we create through the experience are. Society is objective, culture is not.

 

Now as to your point of them not existing independent of humans. This I argued myself for years. If you destroy all humans, you destroy God. I can point to many posts of mine where I say this. However… how I am thinking now, is slightly different. In a sense, this is still true. I see “God” as a symbol itself. So “God” is how we as humans see IT. It is our perception, our interpretation, our symbol. So if you destroy all humans… and anything that we manifest or influenced in any way shape of form (if that’s at all possible), then “God” would also be lost along with all our other symbols. But, how I see it now is that symbol is an expression of something that does exist outside the human, and is manifest through us as all physical manifestation.

 

That’s a perception, and an interpretation. Sort of like saying “There is no glass”, in the study of pouring water from the short glass to the tall glass. To the researcher, I’m “delusional”. That is ‘otherworldly’ to how he sees reality.

[Shyone]

What part of Jesus is it anyway? Is it the rump, perhaps ribs? What if it's organs, or an eye or something?

Ahem. Jesus went bodily into heaven (according to the scriptures). There was only one part of his body that he left behind.

 

His foreskin.

[florduh]

Ewwwwww!

 

But you're right.

[mwc]

Ahem. Jesus went bodily into heaven (according to the scriptures). There was only one part of his body that he left behind.

 

His foreskin.

Assuming it didn't also float away we must remember that this is the foreskin of an immortal god. It cannot die or decompose.

 

Somewhere, out there, is one perfectly preserved and living immortal baby "jesus" foreskin just waiting to be discovered.

 

mwc

[Vigile]

Ahem. Jesus went bodily into heaven (according to the scriptures). There was only one part of his body that he left behind.

 

His foreskin.

Assuming it didn't also float away we must remember that this is the foreskin of an immortal god. It cannot die or decompose.

 

Somewhere, out there, is one perfectly preserved and living immortal baby "jesus" foreskin just waiting to be discovered.

 

mwc

 

Sounds like a business opportunity.

[Shyone]

Ahem. Jesus went bodily into heaven (according to the scriptures). There was only one part of his body that he left behind.

 

His foreskin.

Assuming it didn't also float away we must remember that this is the foreskin of an immortal god. It cannot die or decompose.

 

Somewhere, out there, is one perfectly preserved and living immortal baby "jesus" foreskin just waiting to be discovered.

 

mwc

 

Sounds like a business opportunity.

You can read about the Holy Prepuce (foreskin) here.

 

Sounds like some other people (religious) make a real killing with all of the foreskins of Jesus floating around.

[Autonomous]

Ahem. Jesus went bodily into heaven (according to the scriptures). There was only one part of his body that he left behind.

 

His foreskin.

Assuming it didn't also float away we must remember that this is the foreskin of an immortal god. It cannot die or decompose.

 

Somewhere, out there, is one perfectly preserved and living immortal baby "jesus" foreskin just waiting to be discovered.

 

mwc

 

Sounds like a business opportunity.

You can read about the Holy Prepuce (foreskin) here.

 

Sounds like some other people (religious) make a real killing with all of the foreskins of Jesus floating around.

 

Barf!

[Ouroboros]

They prove there were 18 Jesus-es, and not just one. God had 18 only-begotten sons.

[Shyone]

They prove there were 18 Jesus-es, and not just one. God had 18 only-begotten sons.

Or he was well endowed (which might explain his following), or he was misshapen.

[par4dcourse]

Kathleen's question has become a discussion of the holy schlong. How fitting.

[mwc]

18? That explains how those old people in the temple *knew* without question he was the "messiah."

 

*Chop* More? Yep. *Chop* More?? Yep. *Chop* More??? Yep.

He truly is the son of god!

 

I'd also say enduring that is a lot tougher than a crucifixion.

 

mwc

[Dagan]

Gross.

 

Does that mean there's a holy afterbirth and a whole host of holy boogers out there?

[Autonomous]

Gross.

 

Does that mean there's a holy afterbirth and a whole host of holy boogers out there?

 

For you Brits out there, I seem to remember an episode of Blackadder which dealt with this very issue LOL

[Shyone]

Gross.

 

Does that mean there's a holy afterbirth and a whole host of holy boogers out there?

Maybe Mary

[Ouroboros]

18? That explains how those old people in the temple *knew* without question he was the "messiah."

 

*Chop* More? Yep. *Chop* More?? Yep. *Chop* More??? Yep.

He truly is the son of god!

 

I'd also say enduring that is a lot tougher than a crucifixion.

 

mwc

It was the first miracle! Before the multiplication of the fish and bread.

[Antlerman]

I've moved this topic to the Colosseum. I had considered doing this before as it is a serious discussion topic, and there was no call to suddenly derail it like this. I'd like to see this stay on topic and the discussion continue.

 

 

P.S. I prefer we not post photos of medical procedures, afterbirths, human decapitations, executions, or any sort of jarring imagery in threads that general audiences participate in. They are a strong turn off to a lot of people that can reduce participation in these threads.

[Antlerman]

Antlerman,

 

When a person constructs an imaginary invisible buddy (Jesus) to have a "relationship" with, which -- amazingly -- coinsides with their own specific desires and supposedly intervenes on their behalf -- is this not the very essence of deluding ones self?

 

If someone constructs a government to represent their ideals and creates a flag to symbolically embody this image of themselves... is that the very essence of 'deluding ones self'?

 

Antlerman,

 

I respect your insight and intelligence but I think you are off the mark.

 

I don't think that's a fair analogy.

 

We can actually go and watch our government in action. We can see actual people having debates and making laws.

 

We can't witness people interacting with Jesus, because he only "lives" in the confines of their imagination,

If that were true, that it were solely in the confines of their imagination, then they wouldn’t be so damned annoying at times…. true?

 

We can certainly watch belief in Jesus in action too, making and enforcing laws in his name, building massive institutions through interaction with “Jesus”, interaction with the symbol of their faith. Those are all just as much the result of the reality of “Jesus” is to them, as the U.S. government is to those who act through their belief in the invisible friend called “Democracy”. You say it’s not invisible because we can see it manifest in institutions. But this somehow doesn’t apply to belief in the invisible friend Jesus, who is likewise manifest through people in their institutions created in his name?

 

where this conjured up character can be anything they imagine; anything they want him to be -- the prince of peace or a god warrior, the embodiment of humility or a motivational tool for monetary successes or an erotic lover as opposed to being pure and chaste, the lamb or a fearful god, all-loving or evil and vengeful and so on. These are examples of people deluding themselves by rationalizing that an imaginary character coinsides with their own idiosyncratic desires.

Well, that people largely create God in their own image is nothing you’ll get an argument from me on to the contrary. But I don’t consider that delusion. I consider it symbolic representation. Again, this is masses, societies, cultures, creating an image of themselves symbolically by something that transcends them. That is the very nature and role of symbols. The early Jews creating a single tribal deity was for the purpose of representing themselves as a single people, for pulling them together in a united nation under the Monarchy. This is NOT delusion! This is symbolism, this is the role of mythology. Not ignorance, superstitions, or delusions.

 

What this is about is about systems that form worldviews, that form self-identity, not cognitive dysfunction. And this is why you see me so adamant about this. It throws out any depth of real understanding and replaces it with pejorative rhetoric. Should we move beyond, transcend mythological thinking? Yes, certainly!! But I find it hard to see how that will ultimately help others to do so by not first actually, truly, understanding what it is in order to communicate with them. Calling it delusional, is not accurate. I have yet to get one answer from anyone to this question. Was the entire human race “Delusional” prior to the Enlightenment in the 17th Century? You have to answer yes, if this definition of delusional can be applied to any pre-enlightenment system of worldview. I would consider a yes answer to be absurd, to be “delusional”.

 

 

Additionally -- considering America's government -- the authority comes from a democratic process and the people, where as the deluded christians claim their authority comes from god.

And deluded Europeans thought authority comes from the King. I’m not sure how having a symbolic representation of absolute authority for the governance of a people makes them delusional? Are we judging all cultures, societies, and systems of governments by the Absolute Standard of how we think and do things??? Who made that arbitrary judgment of an absolute, like the Christians in thinking God is that? (whom you called delusional for doing so).

 

I do abhor christians (or any religion) who uses the -- supposed voice of god -- as their own, giving them a bogus sense of authority to push ALL their polluted agendas -- that's deluded.

But you see, it’s not just God people use to give them a sense of authority to foist their views on others. Many governments take their form of government as the absolute to impose on other nations. Say hello to Imperialism! I will certainly grant that religion and God make huge sticks in the hands of politicians to justify their agendas (George W. Bush). But it’s not just religion, but Nationalism that is the same thing.

 

Here’s the point, its not religion that is at fault. Religion doesn’t cause it. People do, and religion, because it is so influential, can be a powerful manipulation of people in the wrong hands. If you rid the world of Christianity, something else will take its place in no time, and be the same thing! It’s not until we evolve as a people that will change, and getting rid of religion is not going to get rid of religion, so to speak.

 

I don't consider religious beliefs anything on par with 'imaginary friends'. I'll just keep repeating this to the point that at some point it will make sense: it is categorically different. "imaginary friend" is at best a superficial comparison, and as such, meaningless to real understanding. But it is great for rhetoric, if that's ones purpose. It's just not mine.

 

I'm not generalizing that religion -- in the broader sense -- is delusional. I am however offering specific examples of how people delude themselves in certain key areas of their particular religion.

 

--S.

And that can be applied to any worldview one affixes themselves to. Again, “delusional” is an unhelpful term when applied to all instances of religious belief, such as calling a book, “The God Delusion”.

 

 

P.S. Yes, I do write a lot it seems.

[florduh]

What this is about is about systems that form worldviews, that form self-identity, not cognitive dysfunction.

There IS cognitive dysfunction in many cases. AM, you have your own unique definition of God. Most religious people, particularly Christians, do not share your understanding of God. Their God physically created every bit of matter and energy, Their god incarnated himself as a real person who performed miracles, not the least of which was his own resurrection. This God is believed to tell them what to think and do. This God appears on burnt toast. This God is a real being who is present or indwelling in the believer. This God tells them how to vote and who needs to be killed for His glory.

 

Is there a better definition for cognitive dysfunction?

[Antlerman]

What this is about is about systems that form worldviews, that form self-identity, not cognitive dysfunction.

There IS cognitive dysfunction in many cases. AM, you have your own unique definition of God.

Not entirely unique..

 

Most religious people, particularly Christians, do not share your understanding of God.

Many would, but I'll concede it challenges conventional thought for your average follower of traditional notions. Not that it has to be diametrically opposed, necessarily, in all cases. But certainly in those which we mostly disagree with together here.

 

Their God physically created every bit of matter and energy,

I wouldn't necessarily have an issue with that, but not in the story-book accounting of it as factual science. The mythological expression is not about facts of science and history, nor is it any direct or hidden message from some said god.

 

Their god incarnated himself as a real person who performed miracles, not the least of which was his own resurrection.

I might say that God manifests itself in many ways, in the human as well as all of existence. So in that sense, the image of Jesus as a divine man, is not necessarily out of line with that understanding of what humans see in themselves as Divine. It is mythological, yet representative, in its imperfect portrait, of something we see in ourselves. Was there a real individual who exhibited these Divine traits? Possibly so, but just as many other figures elevated to represent the higher aspirations of our humanity, they are likely more than just the individual themselves.

 

So in this sense, even in a created myth figure, the Divine could be said to be "incarnate", just as in inspired works of great artists, visionaries, humanitarians, and so on. It is symbolic of the Divine in us, however one wishes to understand that. At least that's how I see it in part.

 

But to the point most Christians wouldn't see it like this... well yes, it's because they understanding it literally; just as those who reject it as fairy tales, superstitious nonsense, ignorance, or delusions. Or that they simply respond on a certain level that simplifies it down to some basic action, through adherence to the social system created around these symbols. There is a certain level where they symbols are purely external. That probably best describes most in a religious system. As I said the other night to someone, unless someone learns how to internalize the symbols, they will never understand the meaning of the faith that creates them. I think that's a good way to put it.

 

Humans create these for a reason. Of course they're not about objective reality. If they were, they'd just be descriptions, rather than aspirations.

 

This God is believed to tell them what to think and do.

The Superego...

 

This God appears on burnt toast.

Well, that is an extreme example. Probably less that 2 percent of your mainstream religious people would agree with that. Seriously, you think otherwise?

 

This God is a real being who is present or indwelling in the believer.

Most would agree with this. I wouldn't see that as a problem per se, as that sort of is part of the religious experience.

 

This God tells them how to vote and who needs to be killed for His glory.

Extreme cases. Not the majority.

 

Is there a better definition for cognitive dysfunction?

Yes.

[Ouroboros]

Is there a better definition for cognitive dysfunction?

Yes.

Belief?

[florduh]

AM, you think symbolically while most others do not. They believe the symbols to be concrete reality. I'm saying that anyone who thinks his God literally talks/communicates to him as a real and external being is delusional in a clinical sense. Those who think Jesus was born of a virgin and performed miracles just like it says in the Bible is deluding himself in the common sense of ignoring certain things to maintain a cherished or useful belief. The second delusional type is common, and likely everyone is deluded to some degree about something. I delude myself that people actually give a damn what I think and say here!

[Ouroboros]

I delude myself that people actually give a damn what I think and say here!

Since I care, it must be a folie á deux.

[florduh]

Is that dirty?

[Petrel]

I suppose it could be!

[Shyone]

I delude myself that people actually give a damn what I think and say here!

Since I care, it must be a folie á deux.

folie á trois.