Is it fair to call belief in YHWH an illusion?

[Mr Spinkles]

What about belief in Zeus, Ahura Mazda, Attahualpa, or all the other gods? Is it fair to compare belief in YHWH to belief in Zeus?

If someone believes in something that is, in your opinion, imaginary, is that person necessarily unintelligent or childish?

When, if ever, is it fair to consider another person's belief an illusion?

Here is the exchange that started this discussion:

...faith in things such as God and the supernatural can be explained by illusions created by our own minds.

Do you think that is always the case with people who believe in God?

Yes. The only other alternative that I can think of is that God and Aphrodite and Thor and all the others actually exist.

I think you should give theists more credit than that.

(from Derren Brown: Faith Killer?)

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

When, if ever, is it fair to consider another person's belief an illusion?

There is a difference between illusion and delusion.

 

[MaddLlama]

What about belief in Zeus, Ahura Mazda, Attahualpa, or all the other gods? Is it fair to compare belief in YHWH to belief in Zeus?

Is there a difference in believing in one supernatural being over another?

I don't see any reason it wouldn't be fair to compare them.

 

[Booko]

What about belief in Zeus, Ahura Mazda, Attahualpa, or all the other gods? Is it fair to compare belief in YHWH to belief in Zeus?

In a way, yes. Certainly humans in the past have believed in Zeus as much as some people believe in YHWH now.

In another sense, no. Even Homer ridiculed some of the more fanciful stories about gods and goddesses in his day, so a couple of thousand years later there's ample precedent for that as well. Whereas the notion of a single omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient Creator has grown in popularity. This is not an argument for the existence of the same, but it is an argument that many people living now seem not to find the idea quite as fanciful as the idea of Zeus. Or perhaps they find the notion of YHWH more credible in our post-Enlightenment age.

If someone believes in something that is, in your opinion, imaginary, is that person necessarily unintelligent or childish?

Not necessarily, though often the way such people approach the topic is childish.

Of course, the same can be said when some theists approach athiests when they also don't take the time to consider the other's pov, so it seems an even score there.

When, if ever, is it fair to consider another person's belief an illusion?

Considering the entire notion of the supernatural is not falsifiable, if one is working from the strictest definitions of proof, it is always fair to consider the possibility that another's belief is an illusion.

But to conclude that it actually is an illusion would require a bit more evidence, and as that lies in the realm of subjectivity, here we can end up in the land of the not exactly falsifiable once again.

It's been my observation that many non-religious folk tend to lump the religious into one bucket, which in itself is an illusion.

 

[Super Universe]

People get so stuck on names...

All these names are equal, they're for the same being.

 

[MaddLlama]

This is not an argument for the existence of the same, but it is an argument that many people living now seem not to find the idea quite as fanciful as the idea of Zeus. Or perhaps they find the notion of YHWH more credible in our post-Enlightenment age.

Polytheism isn't dead, and there are plenty of Hellenistic Pagans who do believe in Zeus in much the same way they did thousands of years ago. And, Hinduism is in many ways a polytheistic belief system.
What makes the Gods of "mythology" more fanciful/less credible than an all-powerful, all-knowing God found in the various monotheistic ones?

 

[Booko]

Polytheism isn't dead, and there are plenty of Hellenistic Pagans who do believe in Zeus in much the same way they did thousands of years ago. And, Hinduism is in many ways a polytheistic belief system.

Oh, I'm well aware, but you must admit it doesn't have the reach it did a few thousand years ago, when virtually everyone was pagan and the monotheists were considered odd.

Frankly, if I put on my skeptic shoes, really it's all quite fanciful anyway, be it polytheistic or monotheistic.

What makes the Gods of "mythology" more fanciful/less credible than an all-powerful, all-knowing God found in the various monotheistic ones?

"Credibility" refers to the ease with which people to believe something to be true. If 1000 people believe one thing and 2 believe another, then one would say the belief of the 1000 must be more "credible" as more actually manage to believe it.

Don't confuse what is credible with what is true, though. They are not always the same, as anyone looking at beliefs about the shape of the Earth will swiftly realize.

Finally, I don't consider mere numbers to be an indication of what and what is not true. At most, a more popular idea might indicate a place for curiousity to roam, to find out why there might be one prevailing opinion that is more fashionable than another.

Sometimes when curiousity meets the end of the journey, we find out the search was in vain. Other times, we find something of worth.

Sorry if my previous post was confusing. I hope this does a little better at communicating.

 

[McBell]

People get so stuck on names...

All these names are equal, they're for the same being.

Divinity...the ultimate multiple personality disorder.

 

[rojse]

I cannot see how the comparison is unfair. Zeus, Yaweh, and all the rest are gods.

If I think someone's belief is imaginary, it does not mean that they are childish. Quite the opposite - they can be extremely intelligent, as I have often found out in the past. All that it really means is that my experiences in life have given me my conclusion, and their experiences have given them their conclusions about a belief. No doubt, had we had eachother's experiences, we would have each other's conclusions.

I think that I should be able to consider any belief an illusion when I am unable to gain my own experiences of a belief that someone else has, whether this is Zeus, Thor or God.

 

[doppelganger]

Sam Harris has an interesting argument about the similarities between theists and atheists ("atheists" simply believe in one less god). From Harris's interview with TruthDig last year:

The thing to reiterate is that every Christian knows exactly what it’s like to be an atheist with respect to the beliefs of Muslims, for instance. Muslims have the same reasons for being Muslim as Christians have for being Christian. They have a book they’re sure was written or dictated by the creator of the universe-because the book says that it was written or dictated by the creator of the universe. Christians look at Muslim discourse and find it fundamentally unpersuasive. Christians aren’t lying awake at night worrying about whether they should convert to Islam. Why not? Because Muslims can’t really back up their claims. They are clearly engaged in a style of discourse that is just not intellectually honest. It’s not purposed to genuine inquiry into the nature of the world. It is a reiteration of dogma, and they are clearly committed to a massive program of self-deception. Every Christian recognizes this about every religion other than Christianity. So every Christian knows exactly what it is like to be atheist. They just don’t turn the same candor and intellectual honesty on to their own faith.

 

[rojse]

Sam Harris has an interesting argument about the similarities between theists and atheists ("atheists" simply believe in one less god). From Harris's interview with TruthDig last year:

Quote:
The thing to reiterate is that every Christian knows exactly what it’s like to be an atheist with respect to the beliefs of Muslims, for instance. Muslims have the same reasons for being Muslim as Christians have for being Christian. They have a book they’re sure was written or dictated by the creator of the universe-because the book says that it was written or dictated by the creator of the universe. Christians look at Muslim discourse and find it fundamentally unpersuasive. Christians aren’t lying awake at night worrying about whether they should convert to Islam. Why not? Because Muslims can’t really back up their claims. They are clearly engaged in a style of discourse that is just not intellectually honest. It’s not purposed to genuine inquiry into the nature of the world. It is a reiteration of dogma, and they are clearly committed to a massive program of self-deception. Every Christian recognizes this about every religion other than Christianity. So every Christian knows exactly what it is like to be atheist. They just don’t turn the same candor and intellectual honesty on to their own faith.

__________________

Perfectly said.

 

[Booko]

Divinity...the ultimate multiple personality disorder.

I'm sure there's a sig line in there somewhere.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

How is believing in YHWH, Zeus, or any other god a delusion or an illusion?

 

[Booko]

How is believing in YHWH, Zeus, or any other god a delusion or an illusion?

According to some Eastern traditions, life is an illusion.

In which case surely belief might be fairly called illusion as well?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

According to some Eastern traditions, life is an illusion.

In which case surely belief might be fairly called illusion as well?

Indeed! These names are symbols for a set of characteristics. But how does that distinguish them from the other symbols that make up our perceived reality?

 

[Smoke]

When, if ever, is it fair to consider another person's belief an illusion?

If one is an atheist, I don't see how it's possible to consider a belief in any personal deity as anything but a delusion. If people view their gods as metaphorical, and not as factual beings, I don't necessarily view that as delusive, though.

I don't think monotheists are really in much of a position to take offense at that, since they generally consider polytheisms, and even monotheisms other than their own, as delusive.

 

[jonny]

I think it's fair to compare the beliefs, but I think it's also fair that someone who believes in God might be offended. I guess I can only imagine telling someone that their belief in God is an "illusion" if I were intending to insult them.

 

[Smoke]

I think it's fair to compare the beliefs, but I think it's also fair that someone who believes in God might be offended. I guess I can only imagine telling someone that their belief in God is an "illusion" if I were intending to insult them.

Why? Don't you, in fact, think that a belief in Zeus, or even in the orthodox Trinity, is delusive? Do think it's impossible to say so without being hostile?

 

[Zeno]

I think it's fair to compare the beliefs, but I think it's also fair that someone who believes in God might be offended. I guess I can only imagine telling someone that their belief in God is an "illusion" if I were intending to insult them.

See I think views like this can lead to unnecessary animosity. In my opinion, a person's stance on God has nothing to do with their intellectual capacity, their morals, their personality, how much I "like" them, and just overall how "good" of a person they are. Just because I find someone's belief in the God of Abraham as delusional as someone who believes in Zeus, does not mean that I am insulting them.

 

[MaddLlama]

I think it's fair to compare the beliefs, but I think it's also fair that someone who believes in God might be offended.

Why would someone who is monotheistic be offended to be compared to someone who is polytheistic?