Monday, May 11, 2009

When "Belief" Becomes "Delusion" (Part One)

The last couple of weeks I've spent quite a bit of my time arguing with those of the religious persuasion. The arguments have included a variety of topics, including why I consider the "We believe in God" principle of the Glenn Beck 9/12ers to be divisive and unnecessary in the fight for less government and fiscal sanity, the effectiveness of prayer, the existence of Jesus, "God" as a delusion, and even the nature of the "real world". Each culminated, just as they usually do, in either the incredibly weak "it's all about belief/faith" rationalization/surrender or the "agree to disagree" compromise.

(Note: henceforth, I'll use the words "faith" and "belief" interchangeably, since the two are equivalent within the context of this discussion. Also in the context of this discussion, I will be using the following definition of the word Faith: firm belief in something for which there is no proof (i.e. blind faith), and NOT - Faith: complete trust (i.e. contingent faith), which the religilous love to falsely equivocate.)

The common thread I see among each of these arguments? : how "benign belief" (i.e. imagination, open-mindedness) can mutate into "benign delusion" (i.e. dogma, true closed-mindedness), and ultimately, provide the scaffolding for "malignant & destructive delusion" (i.e. flying planes into skyscrapers, undermining public school science classes with creation myths, electing fking morons to the U.S. Presidency)

Now, the simple cognitive act of believing in the possibility of something, i.e. the existence a god, gods, evil alien overlords that populated the earth by dropping souls into volcanoes, or alternate states of reality, is not, in and of itself, delusional. All of us have some degree of imagination, and simply positing the existence of something is harmless...life would be pretty boring if Gene Roddenberry had never imagined the world of Star Trek, Joss Whedon had never believed in the possibility of the Firefly universe (or simply 'Verse, as we Browncoats like to say), or the Wachowski brothers hadn't challenged our notion of "the real world" by positing The Matrix (and subsequently flubbing the sequels). Accepting the possibility of these and other products of the imagination that might be is benign belief. This is using one's imagination. THIS, is open-mindedness.

However, one begins descending into "benign delusion" and true close-mindedness when the "possibility" clause is removed from the notion of benign belief. When one starts actually believing that Lord Xenu populated Earth with(whatever the fk Scientologists believe), The Matrix is actually real, or that unseen deities actually exist and control our fate...again, actual belief without a shred of creditable evidence to support the belief(which is now a truth claim)...one has, by definition, become delusional.

So is the individual's delusion benign, or malignant? The delusion is relatively benign as long as the delusion motivated actions of the individual do not infringe upon the life, liberty, and property of other individuals who do not share the delusion. Building conceptual models of alternate realities, prayer, attending church, abstaining from sex, drugs, and rock n roll...all benign. Unfortunately though, when an otherwise benign delusion begins to be spread and shared amongst groups of individuals, the scaffolding for malignant delusion begins to manifest.

I'll tackle "malignant & destructive delusion" in Part Two of When "Belief" Becomes "Delusion". Right now, I'm hungry.

4 comments:

The Whited Sepulchre said...

"So is the individual's delusion benign, or malignant?"

I've had plenty of conversations like this for the last few months.
Is Libertarianism (with a large L) a delusion? Is it a replacement for, or an extension of, a religious delusion? Is something true just because Ron Paul says it?
There are plenty of people out there who think some of our most cherished beliefs are delusional, with potential for becoming malignant.
When I point to the malignancy growing from 1600 Pennsylvania avenue, I'm often met with
1) denial, 2)Bush was worse, 3) Libertarians would be just as corrupt, or 4) a change of subject.
How do you change people's core beliefs, when changes of this nature are so painful?
(and that includes politics, religion, Mac vs PC, thin crust vs crispy, etc etc etc....)

Browncoat Libertarian said...

The difference is, Libertarians aren't doing or saying anything that can't be proven. If we ever got a chance to implement our ideas, we could rationally demonstrate whether they are right or wrong. Our entire philosophy can be proven.

Religions: can't prove a damn thing.

Apples and oranges.

Kent McManigal said...

Believe whatever you want, just don't start to base coercive "laws" on your silly sky-daddy. Some of the best mental exercises for weighing the existence of "god" in your head can be found at God is Imaginary and Why Won't God Heal Amputees?

TarrantLibertyGuy said...

It's kind of funny. I've always enjoyed reading up on 'other' religions. Being brought up Southern Baptist, this was seen as a bit sketchy. I try to adhere to the teachings of Christ, thus you'll hear me call myself a Christ Follower rather than a Christian.

It's also funny when you hear people talk about the infinite nature of God, the Omniscience, Omnipresence and Omnipotence... And then say, "Yep! Everything you need to know about that massive being is right cheer in this 'Good Book'". Most of them don't know how the Bible became the Bible, some of the glitches in translations and "why is Paul all of a sudden the expert on everything?"... Some, so-called STRONG CHRISTIANS, didn't realize that Paul didn't even know Him during Jesus' times on earth. Oh well...

It's as impossible to prove that there's not a God and I've always thought that science doesn't always have to be at odds with the parts of the Bible that gets everyone at odds.

For example, I don't see a disconnect in Genesis and evolution, although the Garden of Eden story is clearly metaphoric. Snakes don't talk, after all.

Theoretical mathmetician's latest explorations of 'String Theory' seeks to explain the interconnectedness of things, which goes to that infinite nature/omniscience/omnipresence concept of "God".

I know that you can't make something from nothing, so everything had to be created SOMEHOW. However, my mom's notion of a white-bearded, white-cloaked God, carving out an Earth with his hammer and chisel, is as blasphemous as anything else. It's comforting for many to not have to think about the big things and just couch their God into the image of the guy on the ceiling of the Sistene Chapel.

I'm not dissing anyone's beliefs or non-beliefs... I'm just saying there's a bigger picture. It's just so big, it'll take us alot of looking to see it all.

At least we can all agree, as my friend Todd says, we don't need the government to do us Christian's 'dirty work'! And to completely mangle and paraphrase Ben Franklin "Any God that needs an earthly government to enforce His laws isn't worth worshipping."