Are Believers Delusional?

[MikeF]

Say I firmly believe that Dr Pepper is the best soft drink on earth. Other people, who have a different opinion, come to me, thinking I am delusional. To prove their point they show me the hard data. The sales data says that the sales of Coke and Pepsi, far exceeds that of Dr Pepper, therefore my choice for Dr Pepper is a delusion, since the majority cannot see that as the best soft drink.

There are very few things an emotional thinker believes, that are based exclusively on objective merit, such as our soft drink tastes, versus the objectivity of the national sales data. However, subjectivity is often tailored to the objectivity of the individual; best optimization for the ego. Critical thinking may be based on collective objective standards, but it may not optimize the ego, as well as being whiny with refined tastes.

Religion is part objective and part based on emotional thinking; faith. It can be supported by subjectivity, as well as unique private data, that will be called subjective, even if it is objective to the person; dreams or visions. It feels right to me, like Dr Pepper is the best, even if the majority likes Coke or Pepsi. The spoiled child getting all the attention is not objective in any collective sense, but is about the ego being so important to individuals.

There is no psychological difference between secular emotional thinkers and religious emotional thinkers, at the level of the ego, other than how the ego is molded. Secular tries to inflate the ego in line with the cultural superego; Psychology. The Spiritual person plays down the ego; humble, in favor the inner self; religion and God's world view, which is less ego centric. Both like Dr Pepper, so to speak.

Many of the wars of words between emotional thinkers, arguing Coke versus Pepsi; Evolution versus Creation, has their ego as the prize. It is often the optimized ego underdog, versus the ego built on the prestige of consensus.

I think you are conflating subjective preference with the ability of the subject to accurately perceive objective events or phenomena external to the subjects mind.

There is no right or wrong as pertains to subjective preferences. There is something wrong if the subject sees flying pink elephants that the subject perceive exist externally to the subject, yet do not actually exist external to the subject.

So in the latter case, as regards the post you responded to, if someone imagines realms and entities that exist externally and independently of the subjects mind, yet are said to have the properties of being undetectable and unverifiable by any means, this presents a bit of a loophole in that evidence cannot be produced to counter the delusion because the delusion preserves itself with un-testability, if you will.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

via What Are Delusions?
The DSM also makes an exception for religiously held beliefs.

So, currently, believers are not seen as delusional.

But should they?

I think that they should when their beliefs lead to a sense of entitlement. There are enough examples, historical and present, that fall under that category.
"We shall conquer that land because it was given to us by our god."
"We deserve tax exemption because we believe in an invisible, higher being."
"I deserve special respect because of my irrational beliefs." (Blasphemy laws)
"You should vote for me, because I got called by my god to run for office."

Technically, it wouldn't even touch on the religious beliefs, only on the resulting entitlement, but even that seems to be a taboo.

What do you think, is someone who thinks that they are entitled to special treatment because of their beliefs, delusional?

From your link:

A delusion is a strongly-held or fixed false belief that conflicts with reality.

How do you know it is a false belief? Not having good evidence does not make a claim false.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-5) defines delusions as fixed beliefs that are not amenable to change in light of conflicting evidence.

Many religious people like myself do change their position based on conflicting evidence.

I would say they are just mistaken.

 

[Heyo]

Many religious people like myself do change their position based on conflicting evidence.

Then your beliefs are not delusional. Only those who don't change in light of evidence are delusional.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Then your beliefs are not delusional. Only those who don't change in light of evidence are delusional.

Sure, so that does not make religious people delusional as a blanket statement.

 

[Heyo]

Sure, so that does not make religious people delusional as a blanket statement.

Never said it does.
It's just that, as it is now, religious nutjobs have a carte blanche to disseminate their hallucinations as "revelation" or run for office on them or demand special rights. At least when the latter happens, I'd like to be able to officially question their sanity. (It will probably deter some of the frauds from using the "anointed prophet" method. Think about people like Kat Kerr.)

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Never said it does.
It's just that, as it is now, religious nutjobs have a carte blanche to disseminate their hallucinations as "revelation" or run for office on them or demand special rights. At least when the latter happens, I'd like to be able to officially question their sanity. (It will probably deter some of the frauds from using the "anointed prophet" method. Think about people like Kat Kerr.)

What special rights do they request?

 

[Bthoth]

via What Are Delusions?


What do you think, is someone who thinks that they are entitled to special treatment because of their beliefs, delusional?

Absolutely.

Whether a pharaoh or charles manson................ the idea of being special over the rest of us, is a form of self imposed bigotry and should be stopped.

 

[Heyo]

What special rights do they request?

Do you really don't know?
Tax exemption (even more than they already have), exclusive use of public property, jurisdiction in "internal affairs", censorship, you name it. Usually, their requests are ultimately denied, but often they get what they want initially, and only lawsuits, often to higher instances, set them straight.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Do you really don't know?

Why is this necessary?

Tax exemption (even more than they already have), exclusive use of public property, jurisdiction in "internal affairs", censorship, you name it. Usually, their requests are ultimately denied, but often they get what they want initially, and only lawsuits, often to higher instances, set them straight.

Other nonprofits are tax exempt and have an agenda as well. I do think they want special right as far as public displays go.

 

[Heyo]

Why is this necessary?

Other nonprofits are tax exempt and have an agenda as well. I do think they want special right as far as public displays go.

Other non-profits have an obligation to report on their cash flow, which churches don't have.
And some believers have a very bizarre opinion about taxes they own. Kent Hovind - Wikipedia

 

[siti]

via What Are Delusions?
The DSM also makes an exception for religiously held beliefs.

So, currently, believers are not seen as delusional.

But should they?

I think that they should when their beliefs lead to a sense of entitlement. There are enough examples, historical and present, that fall under that category.
"We shall conquer that land because it was given to us by our god."
"We deserve tax exemption because we believe in an invisible, higher being."
"I deserve special respect because of my irrational beliefs." (Blasphemy laws)
"You should vote for me, because I got called by my god to run for office."

Technically, it wouldn't even touch on the religious beliefs, only on the resulting entitlement, but even that seems to be a taboo.

What do you think, is someone who thinks that they are entitled to special treatment because of their beliefs, delusional?

DSM 5 is a diagnostic manual...if we start diagnosing everyone with an inappropriate sense of entitlement as having a delusional disorder we'd have to start with almost everyone born after 1990 regardless of religious beliefs - that's about half the population of the world already.

But also, there is a problem with your examples...

I don't think anybody argues that they (personally) should be exempt taxes because of their beliefs, they argue that their religious organizations should be exempt because they are non-profit organizations and/or perform charitable functions - i.e. the argument is not based on their (possibly delusional) religious beliefs but on the interpretation of tax laws.

Ditto with your example of "blasphemy laws" - which btw no longer exist in the UK (formally abolished in 2008) - and have not in the US since 1791 (First Amendment). I don't think many believe they deserve "special respect" because of their beliefs so much as they believe they deserve the same respect as anyone else despite their beliefs.

I can't see anything either irrational or delusional about those two.

As for conquering a land and subjugating its inhabitants because "God gave it to us" - well the "God gave it to us" part might be delusional, but the conquering and subjugating is presumably only delusional and irrational if you can't actually do it and get away with it...so perhaps the delusional disorder is not with the conquerors but rather with the hand-wringing bystanders who collectively imagine themselves to be completely powerless to prevent it!

And as for where delusional electoral expectations lie, well I suspect we'll have the answer to that on both sides of the Atlantic by the end of the year. But don't for a minute be bamboozled into believing that voting for a more "rational" candidate will translate into a cure for our collective delusions of impotence to resolve the issues that beset this generation of poor, deranged humanity. Imagining that, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, would certainly be delusional.

 

[Bthoth]

DSM 5 is a diagnostic manual...if we start diagnosing everyone with an inappropriate sense of entitlement as having a delusional disorder we'd have to start with almost everyone born after 1990 regardless of religious beliefs - that's about half the population of the world already.

But also, there is a problem with your examples...

I don't think anybody argues that they (personally) should be exempt taxes because of their beliefs, they argue that their religious organizations should be exempt because they are non-profit organizations and/or perform charitable functions - i.e. the argument is not based on their (possibly delusional) religious beliefs but on the interpretation of tax laws.

Ditto with your example of "blasphemy laws" - which btw no longer exist in the UK (formally abolished in 2008) - and have not in the US since 1791 (First Amendment). I don't think many believe they deserve "special respect" because of their beliefs so much as they believe they deserve the same respect as anyone else despite their beliefs.

I can't see anything either irrational or delusional about those two.

As for conquering a land and subjugating its inhabitants because "God gave it to us" - well the "God gave it to us" part might be delusional, but the conquering and subjugating is presumably only delusional and irrational if you can't actually do it and get away with it...so perhaps the delusional disorder is not with the conquerors but rather with the hand-wringing bystanders who collectively imagine themselves to be completely powerless to prevent it!

And as for where delusional electoral expectations lie, well I suspect we'll have the answer to that on both sides of the Atlantic by the end of the year. But don't for a minute be bamboozled into believing that voting for a more "rational" candidate will translate into a cure for our collective delusions of impotence to resolve the issues that beset this generation of poor, deranged humanity. Imagining that, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, would certainly be delusional.

There is a way. To perfect an equality levels the playing field.

 

[Bthoth]

DSM 5 is a diagnostic manual...if we start diagnosing everyone with an inappropriate sense of entitlement as having a delusional disorder we'd have to start with almost everyone born after 1990 regardless of religious beliefs - that's about half the population of the world already.

But also, there is a problem with your examples...

I don't think anybody argues that they (personally) should be exempt taxes because of their beliefs, they argue that their religious organizations should be exempt because they are non-profit organizations and/or perform charitable functions - i.e. the argument is not based on their (possibly delusional) religious beliefs but on the interpretation of tax laws.

Ditto with your example of "blasphemy laws" - which btw no longer exist in the UK (formally abolished in 2008) - and have not in the US since 1791 (First Amendment). I don't think many believe they deserve "special respect" because of their beliefs so much as they believe they deserve the same respect as anyone else despite their beliefs.

I can't see anything either irrational or delusional about those two.

As for conquering a land and subjugating its inhabitants because "God gave it to us" - well the "God gave it to us" part might be delusional, but the conquering and subjugating is presumably only delusional and irrational if you can't actually do it and get away with it...so perhaps the delusional disorder is not with the conquerors but rather with the hand-wringing bystanders who collectively imagine themselves to be completely powerless to prevent it!

And as for where delusional electoral expectations lie, well I suspect we'll have the answer to that on both sides of the Atlantic by the end of the year. But don't for a minute be bamboozled into believing that voting for a more "rational" candidate will translate into a cure for our collective delusions of impotence to resolve the issues that beset this generation of poor, deranged humanity. Imagining that, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, would certainly be delusional.

There is a way. To perfect an equality levels the playing field.

 

[Nakosis]

via What Are Delusions?
The DSM also makes an exception for religiously held beliefs.

So, currently, believers are not seen as delusional.

But should they?

I think that they should when their beliefs lead to a sense of entitlement. There are enough examples, historical and present, that fall under that category.
"We shall conquer that land because it was given to us by our god."
"We deserve tax exemption because we believe in an invisible, higher being."
"I deserve special respect because of my irrational beliefs." (Blasphemy laws)
"You should vote for me, because I got called by my god to run for office."

Technically, it wouldn't even touch on the religious beliefs, only on the resulting entitlement, but even that seems to be a taboo.

What do you think, is someone who thinks that they are entitled to special treatment because of their beliefs, delusional?

Anyone who believes they have special knowledge about God or special knowledge about the supernatural is IMO delusional.

However religion is so ingrained into our reality it is hard to dismiss a religious believer as delusional. There is a lot of support for supernatural belief that is external. You are not relying solely on your personal beliefs.

Someone who thinks who thinks they are entitled to special treatment because of their belief is not delusional if they can enforce that treatment.
For example the belief that being a US citizen makes you entitled to special treatment actually does but only because that special treatment is enforceable.

And, religious belief is legally protected.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Other non-profits have an obligation to report on their cash flow, which churches don't have.
And some believers have a very bizarre opinion about taxes they own. Kent Hovind - Wikipedia

So then we need to change the laws, I would agree with that. Hovind was convicted of tax fraud, he did not get special rights.

 

[Audie]

From your link:

A delusion is a strongly-held or fixed false belief that conflicts with reality.

How do you know it is a false belief? Not having good evidence does not make a claim false.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-5) defines delusions as fixed beliefs that are not amenable to change in light of conflicting evidence.

Many religious people like myself do change their position based on conflicting evidence.

I would say they are just mistaken.

Then just leave off the redundant " false"
and go just with "conflifts with reality".

As for "change", that is vague. An insignificant aspect
of a binle verse, or, oh, so thete was no flood.
Or exodus. Or 6 day creation.

Few get past those delusions.

 

[sun rise]

By whom are they not seen as delusional?

Anyway, this among many other inclusions makes it clear that the DSM is a political and social document, not a rigorously scientific/medical document...

Given the levels of uncertainty in medicine, the realm of psychology is even less rigorous.

 

[Heyo]

So then we need to change the laws, I would agree with that. Hovind was convicted of tax fraud, he did not get special rights.

That's why I'd like to call him and others like him delusional. He was under the impression that his belief gave him special tax exemptions. And he still has this fixed, false belief, he has stated that he was unjustly imprisoned.
The FFRF deals with such delusions on a weekly basis. People in organizations who think that their religion has special privileges. Most of them are simply uninformed, but every now and then some are not persuaded by evidence and the courts have to decide, usually against them.
So we have the stubborn belief, and we have people getting hurt (taxpayers), and, just my speculation, a delusion diagnosis could prevent at least some people from going that far.

 

[Twilight Hue]

No, you as an atheist, is deluded.

G

Delusions cannot apply here because well reasoned Atheists are not claiming anything that could be regarded as being delusional as long as they employ the method of temporary agnosticism and avoid making hard conclusions without first adequately presenting the proper evidences to support any and all conclusions.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Then just leave off the redundant " false"
and go just with "conflifts with reality".

As for "change", that is vague. An insignificant aspect
of a binle verse, or, oh, so thete was no flood.
Or exodus. Or 6 day creation.

Few get past those delusions.

Some do some don't, but I don't think they are delusional. They just are believing things based on a bad evaluation of evidence.