Me too, don’t get me wrong–I find the faith-based worldview to be very uncompelling. At the same time, if someone else does find it compelling for whatever reason, as long as that particular person leaves me alone, I got no problem with them.
Faith is crappy as a predictive tool. Science, so these other folks claim, is crappy as a balm for a troubled soul*. As long as they don’t take my predictive tool from me, why should I begrudge them their balm?
Once they start trying to force their faith on me, then my attitude changes toward that particular person.
Daniel
I’m aware religion is much more than a balm, but that’s the best phrasing I could think of on short notice.
Language is a funny thing. An impasse like this only goes to show its limitations. Thing is no single person gets to decide what “baggage” a word carries. What is considered rude is constantly changing as we interact with each other in ever increasingly complicated ways. If you want to challenge what a group of people finds offensive then you have to be prepared to face the consequences which could range from being considered rude to being considered a raging asshole. Just the price you pay.
Permit me another example of a word that is despised around here. The word is deviant. Now originally this word simply meant differing from a statistical norm. The sexual norm in this country is heterosexual so a homosexual is a deviant in that they are different from the statistical norm, however society has attached very negative connotations to the word. The word deviant no longer means just different from the norm. It has the additional “baggage” of acting in a socially unacceptable way. The word no longer applies to homosexuals. Now there are those that disagree and like to throw around this word. It is extremely offensive to homosexuals. Not knowing this and using the word is still rude. Once it has been pointed out that it is rude and continuing to use it will… well lets just say being called a raging asshole will be one of the nicer things you hear.
Now the example isn’t perfect because deluded doesn’t carry quite as much baggage as deviant but the concept is the same. I do understand your point as deluded is still used in a clinical environment as in psychoanalysis that however does not change the more common use of the word which challenges the mental faculties of the person you are describing. Look back at thread and see what words came out after deluded was used. Insanity for one.
yosemite offered mistaken as an alternative. Pretty good. I believe. How about this. I believe people of faith are mistaken and continue to misinterpret the evidence despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary. Polite and still gets your point accross. Now to you that may mean the same thing as deluded but in an ideal situation other people do matter.
Maybe just a matter of style but deluded makes me cringe a little where I agree 100% with the statement in the above paragraph.
I do not describe all behavior out loud. I don’t recall asking for something I could say “out loud”. I am simply looking for an accurate, specific phrase to describe a stong belief that is held without any evidence, and is not offensive to theists. I suspect you would have no problem describing the Mayan practice of human sacrifice to appease the gods as “superstition,” but when I have used it to describe Christian practices I have been accused of bigotry and hypocrisy. Were the Mayans superstitious? Are all assertions of religious belief of equal validity? If not, why not?
Why is it OK for me to say “I think you taken a position that cannot be supported by reason or evidence,” but it is not OK to say “I think you are superstitious?” They both mean the same thing.
Is there no word or phrase that fits my criteria?
Is there *any * religious assertion that you would consider to be unsupported by reason or evidence? Is there any *non-religious * assertion that you would consider to be unsupported by reason or evidence? Would the same term serve to describe both circumstances? If not, why not? As someone (I think testy) has asked–Why does religion get a pass?
Well, I’m with you on this. I think you’re a lot nicer about it than I am though.
Something I’ve asked in a couple of posts now and had a remarkable lack of serious response is:
Why does religion get a pass (from criticism) over other beliefs that are also not backed up by any observable phenomena?
I tend to agree that calling them “delusional” is harsh, but what other term fits?
But it isn’t a redefinition if it was part of the original definition.
I love analogies, so I’m going to make one up.
Before the existence of the KKK, there were bigots. And if you were to describe the bigot, you’d use a term like “bigot.”
The KKK came about, and to it belonged bigots. They were a subset of bigot in that their ire was, primarily, directed at black persons and Jews. Now, in describing Whitey McBigotpants, I can say “he’s a bigot,” or I can say “he’s a member of the KKK.” Which one conveys the more specific set of information about Whitey? And the interesting thing is, other members of the KKK wouldn’t find the phrase “he’s a member of the KKK” to be derogatory. You and I might assign a negative value to being a member of the KKK, but it’s a definition without overt insult.
Before the existence of religion, there were deluded folk. And if you were to describe the deluded person, you’d use a term like “deluded.”
Religion came about, and to it belonged deluded folk. They were a subset of deluded folk in that their delusions were, primarily, dealing with the Godhead in whatever form. Now, in describing Godly McSaintsalot, I can say “he’s deluded,” or I can say “he’s religious.” Which one conveys the more specific set of information about Godly? Not about your opinion of Godly, but about Godly himself? And again, other religious persons wouldn’t find the phrase “he’s religious” to be derogatory. You and I might assign a negative value to being religious, but it’s a word without overt insult.
The problem comes when you want a word that in its definition includes your judgment. Not simply that Godly does X or believes Y, but that his doings or his beliefs mean that he is W.
It seems that “I am an atheist and Godly McSaintsalot is religious” really conveys all the necessary information.
What if you tried to use a polite word for the 1543th time and people won’t listen?
“I believe in god [allah]”
“You’re religious AND people get hurt, or even die because of your believe.” [and people DO get hurt, or even die AND the believer knows it]
“I believe in god [allah]”
*“You’re mistaken AND people get hurt, or even die because of your believe.” [and people DO get hurt, or even die AND the believer knows it] *
“I believe in god [allah]”
*“You’re wrong AND people get hurt, or even die because of your believe.” [and people DO get hurt, or even die AND the believer knows it] *
“I believe in god [allah]”
“You’re delusional AND people get hurt, or even die because of your believe.”
Will that help?
I don’t think so, huh. But we might as well keep trying to avoid more people getting hurt, or killed. Even if we get slaughtered for it.
(Bolding mine)
The problem here, if I understand you, is that you assume that in any conversation with a religious person that person would understand that “deluded” is part of the definition of “religious.” I suspect that would seldom be the case, and is a bit of question begging besides. Are the theists really saying “Look, we know we are deluded, just don’t call us that, OK?”
First, I’d like to thank Voyager for equating theism to a pile of elephant shit. Thank you. :rolleyes:
Second, a question for the atheists who insist on calling the theists “delusional”. Do you think we don’t know what you think of our beliefs? Do you think you’re enlightning us? I get the impression that a few of you think that by calling us delusional we’re going to say, “Wow, he’s right! I’ve built my whole life on a lie! I am now a born again atheist!”
Consider that this particular method is just as effective as a fundamentalist coming up to you and saying, “You will go to Hell if you continue your evil ways! Repent and thou shalt be saved!” How’re you going to respond to that? Are you going to say, “Wow, he’s right! I’ve been living in sin! I am now a born again fundamentalist!”
Please consider this passage from the book of Proverbs.
I understand your point about religious beliefs being a subset of delusions and why Mr. Godly would resent being categorized as deluded. As I say, I have no particular urge to simply slam Mr. Godly and his bretheren and sisteren. Let me put this a different way then:
Why is a belief in a supreme being not classed as a delusion by mental-health professionals?
Religion should be showing up in the DSMV as some subtype of the delusions people have about others controlling their thoughts and actions, telling them to do things, etc. What is it about religion that makes it impossible for a psychologist to tell his patient, “Why, you poor fool! You’re suffering from religious fantasies complicated by a persecution complex! We’ll have that fixed in just a few sessions.”
Why does religion get a pass on criticism? Is it the idea that all opinions are equal? Just because a lot of people have this belief? What?
I’m sure some atheists do believe that. Personally I don’t think theists are any more delusional then any other segment of the population-I think they are incorrect, but certainly not delusional. They think the same about me (with the exception of fideists, I’m guessing).
I agree with you. It’s not the proper way to convince someone that they are wrong or that you are right. Granted it is an effective way (somewhat at least) to stir up angry discussion over the matter.
However I don’t think anyone has ever been either converted or deconverted via an angry discussion.
I don’t believe there is a good way to make theists give it up. They have been taught since childhood (the majority) that some kind of God exists and that questions about him are discouraged.
In places where the religious folk have really gotten their act together (Like Saudi), asking religious questions or renouncing God could get someone into serious physical trouble. Blasphemy is a serious charge here.
Wow, look at that! Meatros was able to get his point across without being insulting about it. So it is possible. You still reading this thread, Loopydude?
Doesn’t the Great Coverup kinda negate the faith part? If God exhorts us to rely on Faith and not just mere evidence (example being Doubting Thomas and all that), why go to such trouble to cover it all up? Thomas got all the evidence he wanted; Jesus didn’t hide it. Thomas just isn’t the example of Faith he might have been (“Blessed are those who have not seen, and yet believe”). You’ve added an extra layer of complexity on top of the faith argument, it seems. Not only does God exalt faith over physical evidence, he sometimes deliberately hides all the physical evidence just in case we decide to look for it anyway. This is somewhat paradoxical, to say the least. How could I properly use Occam’s razor to analyze your choice even if such analysis was necessary? God appears to be arbitrary in your examle, and hence no rule-of-thumb (which is all Occam’s razor really is, as I said) gives me any way to prioritize. I simply must have Faith, regardless of anything I observe in my surroundings (because I can never know when or if God is trying to trick me), and any other consideration is completely moot. I was thinking along the lines of “the flood happened, but we somehow missed the evidence, despite all we know about floods”. You’re saying the evidence is gone, and I must accept this a priori. To this, I would say, Occam’s razor simply does not apply, nor any scientific analysis of any kind. The world, it would seem, is an intricate puzzle, filled with false leads and vast conspiracies to hide its true nature from us. What is the point of Faith, in such a place? How might I apply it? “If it’s in the Bible, beleive, if not, you’re on your own”? What about when the Bible contraticts itself? What is my guide? I can’t rely on evidence, because evidence can be tampered with. I could rely on my feelings, but how can I be sure God is guiding them? How to I avoid paradox and tautology? Not only have you stripped me of Occam’s razor, you’ve stripped me of reason of any kind, beyond internal exerience, which I must simply trust is divinely inspired. Rather than choose between belief in God, or reliance on evidence, I must choose between a God who gives me free will to choose between evidence and faith, so that I might at least have the opportunity to favor one or the other, or a God who tampers with the evidence, apparently at random, so as to test me. Perhaps some sound or tried-and-true principle ought to be applied to that set of options.
Let’s throw all people into the same stereotype, and then proceed to insult them – oh, but it’s not really an insult, because you mean it descriptively and not derogatorily, since in your preconceived opinion your views on what constitutes reality and delusion, and not someone else’s, are precisely what the entire world ought to pay attention to.
And you differ from the most hateful of fundamentalists how?
Because you’re doing just what you despise them for doing.
And they and you qualify, in my opinion, as grade-A jerks, for doing so.
No. My assumption is that the religious person will not see that they are deluded no matter what term we might apply to them.
If I am an atheist (and I am) I’m already saying that I do not believe in God. If the conversation turns so that I need to define my beliefs, I already have the word: “atheist.”
If I thought religious people were right, I’d be a religious person. That I am not a religious person is already defined with the term I can use to describe myself. I don’t offend Godly by describing myself as an atheist. He might want to argue with me, but I am not addressing his beliefs at all, just my own.
If I want to have a word that will show what my judgment is of Godly at the same time that I am describing Godly, that word will automatically be offensive to Godly. “Religious” is a word in which the connotation changes relative to the speaker or hearer. Just like the word “fundamentalist.” The word means something, and on top of that I get a specific connotation from it that someone else might not get. When I use it, I’m thinking in my own head “fundamentalist = x + y +z.” Someone else might only get “fundamentalist = x +y,” but as long as the person I’m describing can accurately be considered a “fundamentalist,” the fact that I then think specific things about that person that someone else might not think doesn’t change my use of the word.
To use another analogy:
If someone is described as a Catholic to me, I’ll think of a person who is of the Roman Catholic faith who is kinda like my family members and who believes certain things about the Bible and works and is likely on X side of position Y and blah blah blah.
If that same someone is described as a Catholic to the father of a girl I attended high school with, he’d think of a person who is of the Roman Catholic faith who observes satanic rituals and who embraces the papist antichrist and blah blah blah.
If that friend’s father is talking about a Catholic to me and merely says the person is Catholic, his judgment about that person isn’t conveyed. I’m not “in the know” about his specific attitude or beliefs about Catholics. And unless we are specifically discussing his attitude or beliefs, I don’t need to be in the know to accept “Catholic” as a description of the Catholic person.
All languages have subtexts. You can’t control it even if you want to, and polite conversation means you often don’t want to acknowledge it anyway. If I say that someone is “religious” at a dinner party, the atheists in the group would likely think something like “Oh, irrational” or “Oh, deluded” or “Oh.” The religious folk in the group would like think something like “Oh, religious” or “Oh, I wonder what religion” or “You’re all going to hell” (just kidding). Those people who have a positive view of the word “religious” aren’t going to be swayed by me calling a religious person delusional, and those who have a negative view of the word “religious” already have their negative view which probably boils down to something like “delusional.” So, no one’s offended, everyone gets the information they needed to make a judgment about the discussed person, and life is good.
What stereotype are you referring to? I don’t think I used any. Also, how is my oppinion preconceived if it is informed by the available and independently verifiable evidence? If the definition of delusion is belief in the absence of any evidence and/or despite contradictory evidence, then to conclude one is deluded is to make an observation, plain and simple, based, as I said, on the evidence that can be observed. That is not a preconception. And the oppinion, if you will, would be that being forced to acknowledge such beleifs as anything other than delusory is not satisfactory. I’ve stated some theists demand this, for all practical purposes (like, say, the President and his stem-cell research ban), and others do not. I’ve also made very clear I consider the former the problem, though both harbor delusory beliefs. Again, if the only issue is the word “delusory”, we simply differ on the level of insult that term ought to convey. I should think, given the careful discussion of the nature of the word, the theists might consider its appropriateness from an agnostic or atheistic viewpoint, and simply agree to disagree. Another oppinion, then, I suppose, is that this is even possible. Or should I say, a delusion of my own.
Well, exactly. A God who wants us to rely on faith makes any other consideration completely moot. I don’t much like that philosophy, but there you go–absent Occam’s Razor (which directs us not to make things more complex than we gotta to explain the evidence), there’s very little to provide a rational choice between the two explanations.
Which is my point. I go through life on the assumption that Occam’s Razor is a good rule of thumb, but I got no evidence to support that; naturally, any evidence I have could be interpreted as evidence of a tricksome deity instead, and absent Occams’ Razor each explanation is equally valid. And I can’t assume that which I set out to prove.
The fact that you (and I) find the idea of a tricksome God to be intensely unsatisfying is neither here nor there. Other people find this concept, or related ones, to be satisfying; I say bully for them, and I mean it. They’re no more delusional than I am, or you are.
Or rather, they may be, or they may not be, but I got no way of judging that accurately, and neither do you.
Okay, first off, if your polite statement doesn’t work, what on God’s Green Earth makes you think your rude statement is gonna work? Flies, honey, vinegar, etc.
Second, you’re painting with the same absurdly broad brush as loopy: what people have gotten hurt because of what Polycarp in particular believes? It seems to me that you, in attributing harm to his specific beliefs, are far more delusional than he is.
“Religious” seems to fit just fine; again, as long as they’re not imposed on me, I have no motive at all for judging their accuracy. As I stated above, I think that none of us are properly qualified to judge their accuracy, anyway.
As for religion’s getting a pass whereas other statements don’t, I’m not sure what you mean. Do you mean that I pooh-pooh dowsing whereas I don’t mock Jesus’s resurrection? If so, that’s not true. I’m happy for there to be dowsers in the world, as long as they don’t try to passing pro-dowsing legislation. Sure, I’ll debate the issue if they want, just like I’ll debate Jesus’s resurrection if a literalist Christian wants; but I won’t call either one deluded.