Shared Delusions of God

Great Debates
1

There was a thread I read today about seeing gnomes in the road when your are driving while too sleepy. The OP reported that his/her father had seen the gnomes as well.

In it Ross mentioned that delusions can be shared by a group of people:

Why is it that when people share the delusion of seeing gnomes it’s accepted as a delusion by nearly everyone, yet when people share the delusion of the existence of God(s) it’s considered bad form to call it a delusion? What’s the difference between these two different delusions?

Is it a good idea to “be polite” to those who have delusions that there is a God, or does this just make the problem worse?

2

Because most of the people who hear about these visions of god usually hear them at a young and suggestable age, and from authority figures. When they hear them later in life they are less likely to treat it as delusions if they are brought up being told it’s all real.

This may be a large contributing factor, another one is that (assuming this is a delusion) the delusion is widespread and is a founding basis of civilization.

3

No, no, no.

Ross’s experience is only called a delusion because he actually saw (or thought he saw) the gnomes. If he merely professed a belief in the existence or probably existence of gnomes, that wouldn’t be a delusion. An irrational or unfounded belief, perhaps, but not a delusion.

When somebody beleives that he has had an experience which we know he cannot possibly have had (“I heard the oranges telling me to kill my wife”), we call that a delusion. When somebody believes something that we do not believe, on what we consider to be inadequate evidence (“I believe that the universe was created by a pre-existing omnipotent being. I believe that the war in Iraq is a justified and effective measure against terrorism”), that is not a delusion.

4

A friend once told me this story: One day, God came to challenge all the best scientists of today and said “You think you can do anything nowadays with all your modern technology. Let’s see you make a living man from dirt.” The scientist jumped at the opportunity saying “You’re on…first, take some dirt!” God smiled slyly and said “Not so fast. I made all this dirt. Let’s see you go make your own!”

In short, it is because “all the bright theories from all the bright men couldn’t close out their pitfalls found time and again”. (Hey, I’m a poet!) What have the gnomes done for us…other than making great lawn ornaments!? I think we are more willing to discount the existence of gnomes when we see no evidence of their presence whereas the suggestion of a superior being or entity has left a pretty good calling card. (Not even the Big Bang, even if repeating periodically, can explain where the sub-atomic of the sub-atomic matter (or the initial energy which you may argue became matter) first came from!

And, while I write this, I will confess I sit on the fence often struggling to try and understand the rhyme and the reason to it all…but gnomes are right out!

  • Jinx
5

Although we’re preeeetty far away from this achievement, some preliminary discoveries have been made.

6

Where?

God of the Gaps proves nothing. You’re mistaking we don’t know for we will never know. Where’d God come from? If God could have “always been” why not the universe?

7

Whether it’s valid to infer the existence of God from gaps in our scientific knowledge is beside the point. The OP appears to assert, or assume, that a belief in the existence of God based on a logically faulty inference is a delusion of the same order as seeing gnomes cross the road, or hearing oranges speak. And it quite clearly isn’t.

8

Fundamentally, no, there is no difference.

I am starting to wonder myself if it’s such a good idea to be politic any longer. Given what happens to any society that I can think of when conservative religion gains influence, I’m starting to wonder if religious faith is something of a vice that ought to be actively discouraged. The trouble is, many people equate faithfulness with morality. I would like to find some way to convince people that scepticism is actually a more “moral” way to approach life. I’m not very confident there is an good way to get the message across.

I guess the best we can do is raise our kids agnostic, and wait for the religious to die off. Unfortunately, we won’t live long enough to see a secular world, but we can do our part, I suppose, by making sure the next generation is more secular than the last. My guess is the current faithful are a lost cause, and it’s best to just leave them be. I offer as a caveat that “leaving them be” does not mean passively allowing them to gain more power and influence to impose their faith-oriented standards on society. I mean something more along the lines of not getting into the debate at coctail parties and so on, since it ruins the atomosphere. Talk about pets and sports teams. No God. No politics.

9

And that’s it right there. If this god of yours ever actually showed up, we’d have nothing to talk about, right? But all we’ve got is a well written myth against facts and experimental evidence. Kind of like a Trekkie dissing science because they’ve been to the stars in their imaginations, and scientists haven’t discovered warp drive yet.

No offense to Trekkies - they don’t say that because they’re smarter than that.

10

Delusions don’t have to be “seen”. ‘Delusion’ can mean “that which is falsely believed or propagated.” I maintain that belief in a personal God (as opposed to pan-theism) is a false belief. Of course, I can’t prove that it is a false belief, but I can’ t prove that beliefs in gnomes or Santa Claus is a false belief either (in other words, the Invisible Pink Unicorn theory).

So the question remains: why should the delusions of God be given a free pass when delusions of gnomes are laughed at?

If enough people share a delusion does it cease to be delusional?

11

Clearly, eh? So if a person sticks to his irrational belief that a 7-eyed Gila Monster controls each and every one of us, you wouldn’t consider that of the same order of the irrational belief that oranges speak? [If you like, replace ‘7-eyed Gila Monster’ with ‘God’; we have equal evidence of either entity running things in the Universe (none).]

It’s true that the two delusions are different, but they are both delusions nonetheless. Come to think of it, claiming to hear oranges speak is a lot less serious of a delusion than believing in an all-controlling God.

12

You miss my point. A belief that oranges speak is a delusion of the same order as a *belief that there exists a 7-eyed Gila Monster or a God, assuming that the evidence for each belief is equally insufficient. In fact, any belief which is founded on insufficient evidence can be described as a delusion in this sense. Your own belief that God does not exist is a delusion in this sense if you don’t have evidence which shows it to be true.

A perception of hearing oranges speak, or of seeing gnomes cross the road, when this has not happened is a delusion of an different character. The religious analogy would be with someone who perceives themselves to have had a vision or physical manifestation of God or of the 7-headed Gila Monster when nothing of the kind has occurred. But most religious people make no such claim.

The fact that we can use the term “delusion” to describe both of these phenomena does not mean that they are the same phenomenon, or that we should treat them in the same way. The first kind of delusion results from deficient reasoning, the second from a sensory disconnection from reality. I repeat, these are quite clearly are not the same phenomenon. We do not treat them in the same way; nor should we.

13

I’d be very grateful if everyone would understand that it wasn’t ME who saw the gnomes, it was some dude over in GQ. Thank you.

ps: how big a step from “raise our kids agnostic and wait for the religious to die off” to “we have to be rid of these people NOW, for the good of our children”?

14

I’d say it’s a pretty large step. I don’t deny the right of the faithful to their views and beliefs. I’d like to persuade them that a hope-based spirituality tempered by scepticism is more tenable and beneficial to society than a faith-based religion informed by dogma. But if I can’t persuade, I’d say it’s wrong to “be rid” of such people by any other means than letting them naturally go extinct. I imagine that will take a very long time, perhaps centuries.

15

So if religious people are deluded, can we then class faith as a mental illness? Will we institutionalize people of faith until they are cured? Will we re-educate them–for their own good? Do the undeluded atheists get to say when they are fully cured?

Or are religious people just less intelligent? All those millions of people for the past several thousand years, some quite amazingly intelligent and insightful–none are as naturally smart and clear-seeing as the average modern atheist. Thus should not the atheists run the world, and tell the faithful what to do (die off)? The faithful, not being very intelligent, might be lower on the scale of humanity, and from there we can classify them as sub-human, and then it is only for their own good that we get rid of them or make them a sub-class–for their own good, of course.

Sweepingly classifying an entire segment of humanity as ‘stupid,’ or ‘deluded,’ so that you can safely ignore whatever they say without giving any thought to it, is quite dangerous in the long run, for anyone at all. Feeling nicely superior is very pleasant, but it’s not very safe. Even for clear-sighted atheists.
Now, extreme scenarios aside (albeit ones that have actually happened in the past 30 years, let’s remember), ‘deluded’ people, in general, are not stable or good leaders. Their delusions come out in their lives, so that they have problems, or become reclusive, or can’t hold a family together, or become too controlling, or whatnot. In extreme cases they may be charismatic leaders, but their communities self-destruct. OTOH, we have the majority of ordinary religious folks, who are frequently good family and community people, and some of whom have been great leaders, artists, or writers–who have built long-lasting, valuable things.

Just like any other idea, when humanity gets involved, religion can become an excuse for tyranny and evil, and can provide fodder for the mentally ill to build delusions upon. That is not a problem of God, it is a problem of the fact that we are human. Sometimes we get sick and often we are very good at being rotten to each other.

16

Thank you dangermom, for pointing out that “delusional” is hardly a word that applies to the vast numbers of mentally stable, good people who believe in God, and for a well-thought-out, well-written post in general.

Enough exposure to this message board, and/or to the real world, ought to convince anyone that neither side—believers or atheists—has a monopoly on sanity, intelligence, good sense, compassion, critical thinking, or moral goodness. And neither side has a monopoly on intolerance, prejudice, ignorance, or a smug sense of superiority. Some of the atheists here remind me of an atheist version of the Church Lady: “Who’s responsible for all the bad things in the world? Who’s responsible for war and violence and greed and hatred and telemarketing and puppy-kicking? Who could it be? Could it be… Religious People? I’m feeling just a wee bit superior. Time for the Superior Dance!”

17

Because there are a great many rational people who do believe in a God. This includes such renowned philosophers as C.S. Lewis, who was dragged kicking and screaming into accepting Christianity after attempting to disprove God’s existence. One might insist that C.S. Lewis was mistaken (misguidedly, IMO), but to dismiss his conclusions as being on a par with gnome-based delusions is a bit arrogant, IMO.

One unfortunate conceit among atheists is that no rational person can possibly believe in God’s existence. As Thudlow said, this makes them seem like an atheist version of the church lady, doing her Superior Dance. Reasonable debaters are willing to acknowledge evidence on both sides, as applicable. The oft-stated insistence by some atheists that there is ZERO evidence for God indicates a shallow treatment of a complex issue, and it suggests a feeble attempt to understand the perspective of their opponents.

18

“Hope-based spirituality tempered by scepticism” is the closest thing I have yet heard to an accurate description of my faith in Christ. Good call. ;j

19

“Hope-based spirituality tempered by scepticism” is indeed an accurate, if extremely vague, description of many people’s faith. I’m curious, however, about Loopydude’s exact meaning. This is too vague to be helpful to me, so if you could elaborate, I would be grateful.

“Hope-based”–hope in what? The betterment of mankind (however you may define that)? Immortality and a better world hereafter? An ill-defined Future, with Mankind marching hand-in-hand with Technology to colonize the universe? The salvation offered by Jesus Christ?

“Spirituality”–is that a general belief in the Life Force and the benevolence of Nature? In God, however that may be defined? In personal introspection and improvement through meditation? Or what?

“Tempered by scepticism”–well, I think I can grasp that one, being something of a skeptic by nature. Note, for example, how skeptical I am about human nature being very good. :wink: Or perhaps that’s just cynicism… But you see, I feel that I have sufficient personal experience to believe in a God. I’m quite skeptical about, oh, chupacabras, for example, and I don’t expect anyone else to accept my evidence for having a faith–you have to go out and get your own.

20

A great many rational people could see gnomes. The number of people who believe in something is not necessarily any good indicator of whether one ought to believe in something. It would appear that during the German Third Reich, the majority of rational people living in Germany thought it was OK to persecute Jews. Does their strenght in numbers make them right somehow? I hate to sound “conceited”, but this is incredibly faulty logic.

I think, rather, a preponderance of rational people believe in God because they’ve been brought to up since they were born. They are told from as soon as they can comprehend that there is a God, that God has certain codes of conduct He wants us to abide by, and that He wants us to follow in His chosen faith because He loves us. This set of beliefs is persistently reenforced by exhortations to study, pray, and attend religious rituals. All such behavior has great power to condition and habituate. I hate to use such pejorative terms as “brain-washing”, but it’s clear the effect of early indoctrination and lifelong endoctrination to religious belief is not dissimilar. One could just as easily convince children, and even adults, with the kind of influence organized religions can exert on the human psyche throughout life, that racist attitudes are moral, that aliens abduct people, that there is a lost continent of Atlantis, etc.