Is it fair to call belief in YHWH an illusion?

[Mr Spinkles]

Let me clear up one area of confusion here:

The OP is not asking if it is polite or constructive to march up to a stranger on the street and say, "Your belief is a delusion!" (I'll adopt the word 'delusion' instead of 'illusion' since, as a number of people here have pointed out, it is a more appropriate word.)

Well, it certainly is a great way to shut down discussion. It certainly comes without saying that many non-theist think this, but what it could possibly bring to a discussion is beyond me. What's accomplished by it?

Good point, but please note the context of the OP. I was asked a direct question, so I gave a direct answer.

The main issue Mister T raised was that thinking of the Abrahamic god as a delusion does not give those who believe in YHWH enough credit.

And also to the OP, you need to change the name on the third quote from the top: That was you who said that, not me.

Changed it. Sorry. :sorry1:

Ghosts have been consistently reported throughout history where as Zeus has not. That would make it a more credible story, no?

Fair enough, Mister T. If that was the only piece of infomation we had to go on, then yes, that would make ghosts "more" credible; but still not credible, i.mo., just as -5 is more than -6, but still not positive.

After all, maybe ghosts are how Zeus manifests himself. Maybe Zeus was only around for a few thousand years, and then he went away. Or maybe personal testimony on such matters is so unreliable as to warrant effectively zero weight as evidence, no matter how many people attest to it.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I think when we have these types of discussions, we tend to focus only on the claim that "Zeus is real" or "ghosts are real". But what about the (not necessarily incompatible) claim, "belief in Zeus is a delusion" or "belief in the Abrahamic god is a delusion"? There are tons of evidence in support of these claims:

• From social science: "The number one predictor of religious beliefs of an individual is that of the parents and culture of an individual." -Michael Shermer, qtd in http://www.geocities.com/skepdigest/Shermer_religion.html
• From neuroscience: "Michael Persinger of Laurentian University in Ontario, Canada, uses a technique called transcranial magnetic stimulation to induce all sorts of surreal experiences in ordinary people. A weak magnetic field rotating in a particular pattern about the temporal lobes will cause four out of every five people to feel a spectral presence in the room with them. If a loved one has recently died, the experimental subject may feel that person has returned to see them. Religious types often identify the presence as God. "This is all in the laboratory, so you can imagine what would happen if the person is alone in their bed at night or in a church, where the context is so important," Persinger says." (Is the Capacity for Religion Hardwired into Our Brains? )
• From geography/history: The localization of god-beliefs and their subsequent spread matches precisely what we would expect if they were a product of culture. For example, if it had been the case that before Native Americans and Eurasians ever made contact, they both had received identical sets of Ten Commandments from a god calling himself "Yahweh", that would be pretty good evidence that it wasn't a delusion. But that's not what happened. The spread of spiritual encounters, miracles, and visions of a god has always coincided with the spread of human interaction, especially missionaries and conquerors.
• From comparative religion: On the one hand, you have a vengeful, all-powerful god who punishes nonbelief, calls on his followers to convert or conquer the infidels, and is the sole source of justice and authority; on the other hand, you have a bunch of gods with human-like personality flaws, limited powers, and they don't charge their followers with missions of holy war or converting the infidels. Is it any wonder the former belief spread, irrespective of the actual existence of said gods?
• From developmental psychology: When small children are indoctrinated into an unpopular religion we call it brainwashing. When they are indoctrinated into a popular religion we call it Sunday School.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I should add:

From history (see wikipedia):

The nineteenth century saw a dramatic increase in knowledge about other cultures and religions, and also the establishment of economic and social histories of progress. The "history of religions" school sought to account for this religious diversity by connecting it with the social and economic situation of a particular group.
Typically religions are divided into stages of progression from more simple to more complex societies, especially from polytheistic to monotheistic and from extempore to organised. "However the old theory that religion evolved from polytheism to monotheism has now been discredited" p. 1763 Man Myth and Magic 1995
Thus, the starting point is the tribal band whose religion is animistic and involves shamans and totems. Since the group is tribal, there is no permanent sanctuary. Cultic rites centre on identification with wild animals and appeasing spirits, often of the hunted.
As society developed into chiefdoms and small kingdoms, religious rites began to serve different functions. Agriculture became important and so fertility gods were introduced (often female, as it is the woman who has the power to produce life). The status of the "big man" (or chief) was supported with mythic tales of heroes and demigods, whom he may be descended from.
When these small kingdoms merged into larger groups (often through conquest), different cults merged. The conquest of one group by another is therefore recorded in an epic tale of the conquest of the conquered group's god by the victor's (e.g. some Hinduism and the Babylonian Marduk). Another solution was to syncretise different religious traditions, for example, the Romans' identification of their Gods with the Greeks and the Greeks' adoption of Anatolian myths and characters.
Finally, the growth of the city state brought about progression to the most "civilised" level of religion, ethical monotheism. Students of the history of religions often learnt that this began in Egypt with Akhnaten and grew through 7th century BC Judaism, Persian Zoroastrianism and Greek Philosophy to endow Western society with the most progressive form of religion. The historical basis of this — that religion moved from polytheism to ethical monotheism — is now doubted, as is the ethnocentrism that made Western society the most civilised.
Nevertheless, it is still widely held that ethical monotheism (e.g. Judaism, Christianity, Islam, some forms of Hinduism and Buddhism) was encouraged by the growth of city states. This was partly due to the role of a hierarchical society with a god-like absolute ruler. A more powerful social force was the isolation of the individual as he moved from the clan to a more cosmopolitan lifestyle. Questions of justice and value that had been previously answered by the family and small tribe were now to be pursued independently. The relative anonymity of the city afforded the opportunity for not only "sin" but also loneliness. Ethical monotheism answered society's need for a moral guide and motivation, whilst a unique personal God who was sovereign over all areas of life answered people's feelings of isolation and powerlessness.
Good examples of this are the prophetic literature of the Jewish Tanakh (Old Testament), especially Isaiah, and the wisdom literature of the ancient near east dealing with apparently unjustified suffering. This includes Job, in the Judaeo-Christian Bible, and "The Dialogue of Pessimism", a Babylonian text.

In other words, belief in gods is readily explained by the economic, political, and social environment of the times, and it is readily explained as adaptations from earlier god-beliefs.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

They shouldn't, unless you're saying "Your belief in Christ is as delusional as the Greeks belief in Zeus."

That is more or less what I'm saying.

Although I think a better comparison than Zeus would be Sathya Sai Baba. We have living witnesses of his miracles, whereas we only have second or third-hand information recorded decades after the fact for Jesus' miracles. I encourage you to follow the link and read the part under "Reported Miracles".

 

[Buttercup]

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

You can consider someone else's beliefs illusions or delusions whenever you want. However, if you want to discuss those beliefs with that person for more than a paragraph or two I would suggest you use neither the word illusion or delusion.

If you've noticed, most theists will allow you forever and a day to proclaim that the God they believe in can't be proven to exist. It's only when you tell them God is an illusion or their beliefs are delusions that you get yourself in trouble. Notice the fine difference in semantics. Nobody with half a brain wants to be thought of as delusional or believing in illusions. It's simple.

 

[Mister_T]

Changed it. Sorry. :sorry1:

No need to apologize. Honest mistake

Fair enough, Mister T. If that was the only piece of infomation we had to go on, then yes, that would make ghosts "more" credible; but still not credible, i.mo., just as -5 is more than -6, but still not positive.

Well, that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. I don't see it that way, personally. To me the "evidence" that we have for ghosts is pretty credible IMO.

But like I said in the last thread, this is all "subjective" evidence and will more than likely have to end in a respectful disagreement.

After all, maybe ghosts are how Zeus manifests himself. Maybe Zeus was only around for a few thousand years, and then he went away. Or maybe personal testimony on such matters is so unreliable as to warrant effectively zero weight as evidence, no matter how many people attest to it.

Well it's a good thing that people aren't so gulliable to believe things just off of personal testimony, and instead practice the art of investigation and research to see if such claims have any backing.

 

[Vfr]

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:



(from Derren Brown: Faith Killer?)

I believe the story of Yahweh is a myth.

see my posts:

http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=318.0

http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=504.0




Take care,


V (Male)

Agnostic Freethinker
Practical Philosopher
AA#2

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Well it's a good thing that people aren't so gulliable to believe things just off of personal testimony, and instead practice the art of investigation and research to see if such claims have any backing.

I agree. I'm glad hardworking people like James Randi are out there.

 

[Mister_T]

I agree. I'm glad hardworking people like James Randi are out there.

I'm glad that hardworking folks like the ones from T.A.P.S. are out there as well.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I'm glad that hardworking folks like the ones from T.A.P.S. are out there as well.

Judging by the number of TV shows and books they produce, I have no doubt they must be very hardworking. And yet, no conclusive evidence of ghosts has been forthcoming.

Conclusive evidence of delusion and fraud, on the other hand, have been forthcoming in countless cases. And, as the author of skepdic argues:

Even if I provided plausible physical explanations for a million poltergeists [or ghosts] in a million different places at a million different times, there is always the possibility that the next one that pops up will be the real thing. So, those who believe in poltergeists, ghosts, and haunted houses can always take refuge in the fact that nobody ever has enough information to debunk every ghost story, and even if they did, the next one might prove the debunkers wrong!

As a skeptic, all I can say with confidence is that when one considers the requirements for a ghost story to be true, the most reasonable position is that there is a naturalistic explanation for all these stories, but we often do not or cannot have all the details necessary to provide that explanation. We must rely on anecdotal evidence, which is always incomplete and selective, and which is often passed on by interested, inexperienced, superstitious parties who are ignorant of basic physical laws. Thus, there will always be stories like the "Bell Witch" story that attract much attention, especially when made into movies, that will lead many people to think that maybe there is something to this one, even if all the other ghost stories are false. The "Bell Witch" is alleged to be "a sinister entity that tormented a family on Tennessee’s frontier between the years of 1817 and 1821."* The likelihood that we don't have all the evidence in this case is proportionate to the number of years that have passed since the events allegedly took place.

http://skepdic.com/ghosts.html

 

[jonny]

That is more or less what I'm saying.

Although I think a better comparison than Zeus would be Sathya Sai Baba. We have living witnesses of his miracles, whereas we only have second or third-hand information recorded decades after the fact for Jesus' miracles. I encourage you to follow the link and read the part under "Reported Miracles".

People have called "God" by many different names over time. I don't think it's offensive to compare the similarities between beliefs.

What I think you're trying to do (and correct me if I'm wrong) is prove to someone that your beliefs are more valid than theirs because their beliefs are the same as [fill in the blanks]. I can see how that could be offensive, and I also don't think it's a very good argument.

 

[yossarian22]

Sure. IF you just believ in something blindly then you can be called unintelligent

 

[Mister_T]

Judging by the number of TV shows and books they produce, I have no doubt they must be very hardworking. And yet, no conclusive evidence of ghosts has been forthcoming.

Well then, I seriously doubt you've followed the show closely. Somehow though, I don't think that would matter much.

Conclusive evidence of delusion and fraud, on the other hand, have been forthcoming in countless cases. And, as the author of skepdic argues:

If you wish to sterotype whole groups based off of certain instances, that is your perogative. It's not a very good argument though, im my opinion.

And we can sit here and throw quotes/theories/opinions from different scholars at each other all day. It's not going to accomplish anything.

 

[Zeno]

Somehow though, I don't think that would matter much.

One thing I fail to understand is why people who believe in the supernatural take this stance with those who don't. I mean in all honesty I would be thrilled if someone proved that ghosts or God existed. It would be a life changing event, and probably make me very happy.

I'm not some pretentious scientist with my nose in the dismissing mounds of evidence. I mean in this type of discussion there is really nothing for me to be close minded about.

 

[Buttercup]

One thing I fail to understand is why people who believe in the supernatural take this stance with those who don't. I mean in all honesty I would be thrilled if someone proved that ghosts or God existed. It would be a life changing event, and probably make me very happy.

I'm not some pretentious scientist with my nose in the dismissing mounds of evidence. I mean in this type of discussion there is really nothing for me to be close minded about.

You know, my sister saw the same ghost twice. She told me the story in vivid detail and because my sister is a rational, intelligent human being I believe her. If I never heard another ghost story I would still believe in them just from her account.

 

[Mister_T]

One thing I fail to understand is why people who believe in the supernatural take this stance with those who don't.

And my comment was directed at that particular indiviual......not everyone who doesn't believe in the supernatural.

 

[MOZedek]

YHWH an illusion- in a matter of semantics- YHWH is simply put That is itself- or in English _GOD- it is not in any proper sense the name of a being or entity- as Ahura Mazda or Zeus are proper names
If any one believes in YHWH- he should examine for himself the very roots of the word - for did not eve- I have begotten a son and I believe he is YHWH- Genesis

 

[Zeno]

And my comment was directed at that particular indiviual......not everyone who doesn't believe in the supernatural.

And I was merely commenting on the frequent use of that mindset. Sorry, I wasn't trying to accuse you of stereotyping, I was just taking a tangent.

 

[Mister_T]

And I was merely commenting on the frequent use of that mindset.

As was I....only on the opposite spectrum.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

People have called "God" by many different names over time.

Not that this contradicts what you've said here, but I thought it might be useful to add that people have also had dramatically different and incompatible god-beliefs over time. I'm sure you would agree that it has not been the case that everyone has had the same ideas about gods but given them different names.

What I think you're trying to do (and correct me if I'm wrong) is prove to someone that your beliefs are more valid than theirs because their beliefs are the same as [fill in the blanks]. I can see how that could be offensive, and I also don't think it's a very good argument.

Well, originally I was simply answering a question. In all honesty, I don't think what you've said here fairly characterizes my argument, which I submit not in order to "prove" anything to anyone, but simply because I'd like people to consider it and offer their own honest opinions. It's the same reason I post anything on this forum.

*edit: Did you read the article about Sathya Sai Baba?

Please keep in mind that I myself once believed in God and called myself a Christian. Most of my friends and family are believers. I am not engaging in this discussion because I am trying to "put down" people who believe in gods.

I don't think some posters on this thread realize that I'm being sincere and not deliberately offensive.