Theism, Psychological self-delusion

[pantheory]

The cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker commented concerning those that believe in an afterlife by saying that such a belief devalues actual lives and discourages actions that could enable people to live longer, be safer, and live happier lives.

The writer Robert M Pirsig’s said with humor that “when one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. But when many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion”.

In his book The God Delusion Richard Dawkins argued that religious faith is “persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence”, and thus delusional.

Many, including myself, have fun laughing about religious folk and religions other than their own, thinking of the stupidity and imperfections of others while often not being aware of their own.

https://www.livescience.com/is-belief-in-god-a-delusion.html

[disillusioned]

I agree, but where is the science here?

[pantheory]

In this case we are talking about the study of human behavior in the social sciences of Psychology and Sociology. Some of the other studies called social sciences are Anthropology, Archaeology, Economics, Geography, History, Law, Linguistics, Politics, etc.

 

disillusioned, Hope you have a great Thanksgiving weekend,  cheers   Forrest Noble

[disillusioned]

Thanks Forrest. I hope you have a great weekend too.

 

I understand that psychology is a social science. I'm by no means an expert, but I have a rudimentary grasp of what it is as a field. I do not mean to disparage it. I think many of the social sciences have very good contributions to make to our understanding of reality.

 

The article linked to, though, seems to me to be an opinion piece. It isn't a technical paper or a study. There is a paper linked to in the article (here is the relevant link), but the paper in question was published in Current Opinions in Psychology, and, appropriately, it is essentially a technical opinion piece. Moreover, the authors seem to recognize that there can be both healthy and delusional religious belief, or at least so it seems to me after a quick first reading.

[WalterP]

Disillusioned,

 

What you say can also be applied to science.

 

There are healthy and delusional scientific beliefs too.

 

BAA was onto this.  In this thread he cites three examples of astronomers who became fixedly stubborn to the point of self-delusion.  

 

https://www.ex-christian.net/topic/25632-question-for-christians-about-biblical-inerrancy/page/64/?tab=comments#comment-573590

 

The big question for me is how should a balance be struck?

 

It's a good thing to have have the courage of your convictions, no doubt about it.

 

But one should always try to keep one's mind open to the possibility that you are wrong.

 

 

 

A word to those waiting to pounce on my last two sentences.

 

What I've just written above applies just as much to the dissidents, the mavericks and the iconoclasts as those who hold to mainstream orthodoxy.

 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

[disillusioned]

10 hours ago, WalterP said:

Disillusioned,

 

What you say can also be applied to science.

 

There are healthy and delusional scientific beliefs too.

 

Agreed.

 

Quote

The big question for me is how should a balance be struck?

 

It's a good thing to have have the courage of your convictions, no doubt about it.

 

But one should always try to keep one's mind open to the possibility that you are wrong.

 

 

Yes, this is a hard question. 

 

I'm not really involved in doing science per se, so perhaps my opinion here is not that relevant, but I think that a certain amount of detachment is helpful. Yes, when we hold a particular view (scientific or otherwise), it's our view, so we are naturally partial to it. We may become emotionally attached to it. But if we wish to retain an open mind, we need to remember that it is still just our view, and it might turn out to be incorrect. 

 

As you know, my approach to science is to treat all theories as imperfect models. I think this approach may be helpful here, because it specifically presupposes that no theory is ultimately completely correct. Therefore, we must not become too attached to any particular theory. Your theory may turn out to be better than mine,  and that's a good thing. Science advances in this way.

 

Another danger I see of becoming too attached to particular models is that it neglects to account for the incompleteness of the models. Yes, my theory may turn out to be incorrect, but even if it doesn't, it certainly isn't complete. Maybe my theory is good at dealing with X, and your theory is good at dealing with Y. What should we do? The obvious answer is to use my theory for X, and use your theory for Y, and continue to look for a better theory that can treat both X and Y. This approach can be very difficult, though, if we're too attached to a particular view.

 

Even very good scientists can fall into this trap. Einstein found QM absurd, and never really accepted it. This, I think,  may be partly because of his committment to GR. The two don't play well together, as you know. A better approach is to use QM for what it is good at, and use GR for what it is good at, and try to come up with a better theory. Easier said that done, though, especially when a theory as rich, powerful, and complex as GR is your personal creation.

 

This is not to say that there should be nothing that we make up our minds about. The phlogiston theory is false. The flat-earth theory is false. And so on. These are easy examples, but in general, I think that it is less dangerous to make up one's mind about what one does not accept than about what one does. Of course, we can still form delusions in this way, but I think it is less likely.

 

Back to the topic of the OP: I believe that theistic belief in general is false belief. I believe that often it is unhealthy. But I also know that sometimes it isn't. I've seen people use their faith to improve their lives, and I've seen many people live long, happy, healthy, intellectually fulfilled lives while holding religious beliefs. To call all religious belief "delusion", and to paint it all as harmful, and to imply that this is a scientific conclusion, seems to me to go a bit too far. Particularly when the scientific support put forth for this view is an opinion piece which doesn't even argue the point in question.

[pantheory]

20 hours ago, disillusioned said:

Thanks Forrest. I hope you have a great weekend too.

 

I understand that psychology is a social science. I'm by no means an expert, but I have a rudimentary grasp of what it is as a field. I do not mean to disparage it. I think many of the social sciences have very good contributions to make to our understanding of reality.

 

The article linked to, though, seems to me to be an opinion piece. It isn't a technical paper or a study. There is a paper linked to in the article (here is the relevant link), but the paper in question was published in Current Opinions in Psychology, and, appropriately, it is essentially a technical opinion piece. Moreover, the authors seem to recognize that there can be both healthy and delusional religious belief, or at least so it seems to me after a quick first reading.

 

Yeah, you're right. This article is more of an opinion piece than any kind of science. Still, some of what masquerades as science is also just opinion. I thought this fit in with science vs. religion maybe on the lighter side of intellect.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

A few years ago I heard it explained like this.   There are degrees of delusion --- a fuzzy line between superstition and delusion.  Belief in religion for most people is superstition.  They believe it because that is what most people around them believe, and their overall thought processes are "normal".  It becomes delusion when the view is substantially different than what the majority believe, and is rigidly held with no room for discussion.  

[disillusioned]

1 hour ago, pantheory said:

 

Yeah, you're right. This article is more of an opinion piece than any kind of science. Still, some of what masquerades as science is also just opinion. I thought this fit in with science vs. religion maybe on the lighter side of intellect.

 

Fair enough. It certainly is an interesting discussion. Just wanted to be clear about what was being asserted.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

Hang with me while I do some mulling.  Hadn't thought on this subject for a while.  I "wrestled" with it for years, and before leaving the faith I searched for a "healty" alternative, attending more liberal denominations, and even a Unitarian Universalist church for a while, and took a brief look at Buddahism.   But the combination of a logical brain and "red neck" individualism didn't fit in anywhere.  My logical brain couldn't accept the superstition and delusion of traditional christianity.  

 

As a clinical social worker I worked in and with several faith based organizations, including Catholic hospitals, for several years.  A lot of good is done in the world by religion, and society would suffer a great loss if they didn't exist today.  But through history it has caused tremendous chaos, suffering, and blocked rational scientific study, and still does in some places. 

 

I was encouraged a few years back by what looked like a liberal trend.  And am somewhat encouraged by the current liberal Pope.  Just hope he doesn't get assassinated.  But the far right wing authoritarians with their God given absolutes are fighting hard to take us backwards.  Discouraging critical thinking and higher learning.  They are the ones who scare me.   

 

So can you say that in today's world all religions hamper progress?  And when it comes to "looking down our nose" at those who don't believe like we do, I have to continually tell myself that I was in their shoes a few years back.  And sometimes that, except for the chance of birth, there go I.