Is It Insane to Believe Your Religon is Exclusively True?

[Xemmy]

Whether or not someone is insane, because they believe their religion exclusively is true, is something that depends on why the person answers, “Yes.” to that question. People who have never been exposed to any other ideologies have the excuse of ignorance. People who have only been exposed to their own culture should not be considered insane. Even those that have been exposed may have never bothered to question the validity of their exlusivism. Whether lack of realization is ignorance or a minor form of insanity- I don't know.

I will argue that people that have been thoroughly exposed ARE insane to be exclusivists. When all the facts are presented, such as accident of birth, history, and similarities between ideologies- it is delusional to still think that you and your religion hold the sole truth.

Spoiler

A delusion is a fixed belief that is either false, fanciful, or derived from deception. In psychiatry, it is defined to be a belief that is pathological (the result of an illness or illness process) and is held despite evidence to the contrary.

THIS SHOULD NOT DEVOLVE INTO WHICH RELIGION OR LACK THEREOF IS RIGHT!!!

Is Exclusivism Literally Insane?

Is It As Cut and Dry as "You're Either Ignorant or Insane"?

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

Religion is one of those debates that have always disregarded logic. However, when you have a set of believes, whether they be political, or religious, or whatever, I don't think it's particularly "insane" to disbelieve a different set of beliefs that contradicts their own.

The people who tend to have conflicting beliefs are the crazy ones.

The Westboro Baptist Church is a good example of a group of people who have conflicting beliefs. The Bible is their fundamental source of beliefs, yet the belief they preach the most is hate, which completely contradicts Christian teachings.

 

[Ultra Awesome]

To say that one is 'litterally insane' for being 'exclusive' to their own religion is impossible. Insanity equates to mental instability, otherwise known as a mental illness. Now, just because one is too 'ignorant' to see the flaws or incorrectness involved in their religion does not mean that they are insane. If anything, I'd say that they are just trapped living in a false reality. They are believing truths that aren't necissarily truths or are false to others.

But in any case, while although beliefs may be contardictable with other beliefs, it should be dully noted that these 'beliefs' are what brings a sense of peace for one. The 'beliefs' are what are used to answer the question that life itself has not given them. They fill the void of emptiness that comes out when asking the many questions that there is no kind of factual evidence for.

I whole-heartedly disagree with calling people who are 'exclusive' to their own religion insane. They may be ignorant, or too short minded; but they are not insane.

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

According to that definition of "delusion," anyone who is religious or believes in some kind of formless ultimate would be delusional. Dawkins must have written that definition.

I have come to the point where religious experience, etc, is something that totally supersedes any kind of reason or logic. How could it be reasonable to believe in something that I can't touch, smell, see, or hear?

Religion only makes sense if it is successful in calming existential fear and anxiety.



In short, there are a lot of things that I disagree with in this thread, particularly that spirituality might be something that is overly logical.

 

[Xemmy]

To say that one is 'litterally insane' for being 'exclusive' to their own religion is impossible. Insanity equates to mental instability, otherwise known as a mental illness. Now, just because one is too 'ignorant' to see the flaws or incorrectness involved in their religion does not mean that they are insane. If anything, I'd say that they are just trapped living in a false reality. They are believing truths that aren't necissarily truths or are false to others.

But in any case, while although beliefs may be contardictable with other beliefs, it should be dully noted that these 'beliefs' are what brings a sense of peace for one. The 'beliefs' are what are used to answer the question that life itself has not given them. They fill the void of emptiness that comes out when asking the many questions that there is no kind of factual evidence for.

I whole-heartedly disagree with calling people who are 'exclusive' to their own religion insane. They may be ignorant, or too short minded; but they are not insane.

You're missing my point I think. Ignorance doesn't equal insanity- that's true.
But what if you aren't ignorant, and you still hold to exclusivism. What if you've been presented all the facts that discredit exclusivism, such as accident of birth, and you still hold to the idea that everyone else in the world is wrong and you (And those that share your beliefs) have the sole path to salvation? It's not ignorance we're talking about here. That word is used too often in your argument. Since we're talking about those that have the knowledge, but still believe otherwise- what's not delusional about that? Having beliefs for which there is no basis for is fine on that end, but having beliefs for which there is evidence against is different.

 

[Xemmy]

According to that definition of "delusion," anyone who is religious or believes in some kind of formless ultimate would be delusional. Dawkins must have written that definition.

Actually, it's off of wikipedia. However that definition doesn't actually cover that. There is no evidence to the contrary that a formless ultimate exists. Therefore that definition doesn't touch that belief.

I have come to the point where religious experience, etc, is something that totally supersedes any kind of reason or logic. How could it be reasonable to believe in something that I can't touch, smell, see, or hear?

It isn't reasonable, but it's not delusional.

Religion only makes sense if it is successful in calming existential fear and anxiety.

Personally I don't think religion makes sense under any circumstances, but that's just me, to each their own.

In short, there are a lot of things that I disagree with in this thread, particularly that spirituality might be something that is overly logical.

I don't understand this last one at all. Spirituality isn't simply interchangable with exclusivism.

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

If a belief is held despite evidence to the contrary, then it would be delusional according to Wiki. There is evidence suggesting that a higher power might be BS, so, this theory could be rather delusional.

If it calms existential fear and anxiety, then it makes sense on an emotional and physiological level. If the thing that one is believing in is believed to be making an actual change, then it would make sense that it is real. But then that also might be dependent upon what one's definition of real is.

As far as insanity to believe that one religion is concerned? No. Why would that be more insane than holding any other theological belief?

 

[Xemmy]

If a belief is held despite evidence to the contrary, then it would be delusional according to Wiki. There is evidence suggesting that a higher power might be BS, so, this theory could be rather delusional.

Last time I checked, there is absolutely NO evidence that says God or any other higher power doesn't it exist. However, there is no evidence on the other side either. God has no evidence on him/her, one way or another.

If it calms existential fear and anxiety, then it makes sense on an emotional and physiological level. If the thing that one is believing in is believed to be making an actual change, then it would make sense that it is real. But then that also might be dependent upon what one's definition of real is.

I understand- kind of. I won't argue against that. The way I would personally explain it, is that when this is the case, religion and spirituality are fufilling their evolutionary purpose.

As far as insanity to believe that one religion is concerned? No. Why would that be more insane than holding any other theological belief?

Because they're two different theological beliefs. And one isn't necessarily insane unless it fits certain criteria.

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

Last time I checked, there is absolutely NO evidence that says God or any other higher power doesn't it exist. However, there is no evidence on the other side either. God has no evidence on him/her, one way or another.

Right. Nobody really KNOWS. Hence it COULD be delusional. There COULD be evidence to the contrary, particularly depending on what perspective you are viewing.

I understand- kind of. I won't argue against that. The way I would personally explain it, is that when this is the case, religion and spirituality are fufilling their evolutionary purpose.

If something has purpose, then it would be real. But that's just me.

Because they're two different theological beliefs. And one isn't necessarily insane unless it fits certain criteria.

If there is no evidence that God exists or doesn't exist, then there would be no way of determining that being exclusive in one's belief is insane. If "God" is in a realm that is beyond evidence...then how can it be subject to evidence within itself?

 

[Xemmy]

Right. Nobody really KNOWS. Hence it COULD be delusional. There COULD be evidence to the contrary, particularly depending on what perspective you are viewing.

Delusion is denial of reality. Since there is no evidence to deny, it's not delusional.

If something has purpose, then it would be real. But that's just me.

What are we suppose to be arguing here?

If there is no evidence that God exists or doesn't exist, then there would be no way of determining that being exclusive in one's belief is insane. If "God" is in a realm that is beyond evidence...then how can it be subject to evidence within itself?

As I said before, being delusional is the denial of fact. We're not arguing the existence of God. We're arguing Exclusivism- which is the belief that one paticular religion or belief is the only truth, and the only key to salvation. Since it has no supporting evidence in favor of it, and there is evidence against it- it is delusional to be exclusivist when presented with exposure to other religions that make similar claims, accident of birth, and other beliefs that make it unlikely that anyone has the sole truth in the land of the supernatural.

 

[Ultra Awesome]

You're missing my point I think. Ignorance doesn't equal insanity- that's true.
But what if you aren't ignorant, and you still hold to exclusivism. What if you've been presented all the facts that discredit exclusivism, such as accident of birth, and you still hold to the idea that everyone else in the world is wrong and you (And those that share your beliefs) have the sole path to salvation?

Then that would be stubbornness. If you recall correctly, I said: "They may be ignorant or too short-minded." In other words, if one is unwilling to come out of the cave to see the light and see the true realities that Science has proven, then it makes them too closed-minded and ultimately stubborn. And stubborness does not equate insanity.

It's not ignorance we're talking about here. That word is used too often in your argument. Since we're talking about those that have the knowledge, but still believe otherwise- what's not delusional about that? Having beliefs for which there is no basis for is fine on that end, but having beliefs for which there is evidence against is different.

Not really. When you are devoted to said beliefs, often times you want to believe said beliefs are true; and of course, bring one a sense of peace and happiness. These beliefs become your reality and you want to abide by that reality no matter what. So when science comes in to the picture and disproves what your 'beliefs' were...what do you do? Are you going to just stop believing and question everything you believe in? Maybe you would - but ask yourself, how many 'Christians' would do that? I'll tell you: not many.

See, as I think I failed to elaborate in my first post, 'Beliefs' of a religion are ideals formed in order to fill the voids in questions that have no answers. Questions such as: "What happens to us when we die?" - there is no factual evidence to prove what happens to us when we die - only theories. And what theory does, say, Christianity give us? We go to either heaven or hell. That answer alone will give one a sense of contentment and make them lose the fear or anxiety that they would feel without an answer.

So what happens when science proves a certain 'religious theory' false? Well, the flaws of religion are exposed - and thus, ultimately leads to what we all know as 'non-believers': people that question the religion and its methods. However, just because one questions the religion from whens they came, does not automatically mean everyone is going to do that. Some will be unwilling to accept the "truth" because they feel that their "truth" is still right. Does that make them dellusional or insane? Maybe for some - but more likely than not, they are either stubborn or are too content with what they believe in.

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

Xem...if there is no evidence of God, then there can be no evidence stating that one religion is or is not the only path to salvation. Can you show me any clinical studies that indicate that all religions have some valid truth claims? Or that some religions are hogwash? If you can do this, then I might be willing to take a side.

But you cannot...because truth and salvation are not things that can be proven or tested empirically. Thus, they are all equally plausible. As a result, it would not be "INSANE" to have an exclusivist perspective, as thinking that there is only one truth is just as likely, in terms of logic, as thinking that there are multiple or infinite truths.

Pretty easy.

 

[Xemmy]

Then that would be stubbornness. If you recall correctly, I said: "They may be ignorant or too short-minded." In other words, if one is unwilling to come out of the cave to see the light and see the true realities that Science has proven, then it makes them too closed-minded and ultimately stubborn. And stubborness does not equate insanity.

Shrugging it off as stubbornness doesn't change what we're talking about. Stuborness is when someone's beliefs are fixed to the point that it's unreasonable. Deluded is when someone's beliefs are fixed, and these beliefs are false, fanciful, or dervived of deception. We're drawing a very fine line. And to be honest, I'm not sure if there is a line to be drawn. The two terms intermingle a bit.

Not really. When you are devoted to said beliefs, often times you want to believe said beliefs are true; and of course, bring one a sense of peace and happiness. These beliefs become your reality and you want to abide by that reality no matter what. So when science comes in to the picture and disproves what your 'beliefs' were...what do you do? Are you going to just stop believing and question everything you believe in? Maybe you would - but ask yourself, how many 'Christians' would do that? I'll tell you: not many.

That's delusion. You said it yourself. "These beliefs become your reality and you want to abide by that reality no matter what." And personally, if evidence came out that disproved virtually the entire bible, I imagine about half of them would jump ship. But that's something neither of us can prove or disprove so let's leave it.

See, as I think I failed to elaborate in my first post, 'Beliefs' of a religion are ideals formed in order to fill the voids in questions that have no answers. Questions such as: "What happens to us when we die?" - there is no factual evidence to prove what happens to us when we die - only theories. And what theory does, say, Christianity give us? We go to either heaven or hell. That answer alone will give one a sense of contentment and make them lose the fear or anxiety that they would feel without an answer.

This has nothing to do with the argument though. We're not talking about beliefs that fill the gaps. We're talking about beliefs that are trying to fill gaps that are no longer there. And we're still claiming that they are there.

So what happens when science proves a certain 'religious theory' false? Well, the flaws of religion are exposed - and thus, ultimately leads to what we all know as 'non-believers': people that question the religion and its methods. However, just because one questions the religion from whens they came, does not automatically mean everyone is going to do that. Some will be unwilling to accept the "truth" because they feel that their "truth" is still right. Does that make them dellusional or insane? Maybe for some - but more likely than not, they are either stubborn or are too content with what they believe in.

Those that are unwilling to except reality, and continue to live in the false one are deluded. The rest that remain are there because they don't know any better. If 1 person thought that they could dunk a basketball into a hoop in the sky, you'd call them delusional. (exuse the extreme metaphor) If a million of them thought that, you'd tell me that some of them were just stubborn because they've been told all their life that they can.

 

[Xemmy]

Xem...if there is no evidence of God, then there can be no evidence stating that one religion is or is not the only path to salvation. Can you show me any clinical studies that indicate that all religions have some valid truth claims? Or that some religions are hogwash? If you can do this, then I might be willing to take a side.

We're talking about a specific kind of insane. Delusion. It's not delusional to think God exists, simply because there isn't evidence that he doesn't. Now if you would like to tell me a specific psychological disorder that God's existence would fall under, please tell me.

But you cannot...because truth and salvation are not things that can be proven or tested empirically. Thus, they are all equally plausible. As a result, it would not be "INSANE" to have an exclusivist perspective, as thinking that there is only one truth is just as likely, in terms of logic, as thinking that there are multiple or infinite truths.

Pretty easy.

You're right, truth and salvation can't be tested. And they're not the reason why Exclusivists are deluded. They're deluded because they think that they alone have them, despite the contridictions in all other holy books, a disregard for other people's ideas and beliefs- regardless if there's any validity, and the idea that an all loving God would give some people the truth and withhold it from others. Pluralism, while still stupid, doesn't generally deny these things.

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

Xem...


If people believe in a monotheistic deity, and you claim that is NOT DELUSIONAL...then as a general rule it cannot be delusional or "insane" to believe in this God's exclusivity...unless you want to continue arguing in complete contradiction.


/thread.

 

[Xemmy]

Xem...


If people believe in a monotheistic deity, and you claim that is NOT DELUSIONAL...then as a general rule it cannot be delusional or "insane" to believe in this God's exclusivity...unless you want to continue arguing in complete contradiction.


/thread.

Believing in a deity isn't technically delusion. We've established that.
We're not talking about believing in a God's exclusivity. We're talking about an entire belief system being the one and only way- when there is contridictory evidence.

But I'm done regardless. Thanks for helping me exercise my noggin tonight.

 

[Ultra Awesome]

You may be done with this, but I need to say something before I'm done too.

Shrugging it off as stubbornness doesn't change what we're talking about. Stuborness is when someone's beliefs are fixed to the point that it's unreasonable. Deluded is when someone's beliefs are fixed, and these beliefs are false, fanciful, or dervived of deception. We're drawing a very fine line. And to be honest, I'm not sure if there is a line to be drawn. The two terms intermingle a bit.

So in your mind stubborness = dillusional? Then, I suppose almost every person in the entire Earth must be dillusional.. No. Stubborness is an unwilling to accept contrary opinions. Dillusion is being insane and having a mental illness. Two different things. My point on stubborness being a reason for being 'exclusive' still stands.

That's delusion. You said it yourself. "These beliefs become your reality and you want to abide by that reality no matter what." And personally, if evidence came out that disproved virtually the entire bible, I imagine about half of them would jump ship. But that's something neither of us can prove or disprove so let's leave it.

You're misunderstanding me here, man. Just because continues to uphold reality that is not necissarily true does not mean that they are dillusional. In the 1800's and 1900's blacks were viewed as inferior. So believing that blacks were shit was "right." Thinking otherwise was wrong. But as facts clearly point out, blacks are not inferior - they are equal to anyone and everyone. So based on this, does that make the caucasians in those times dillusional? No. It means that they were stuck in a false reality that wasn't true. The same comparison can be made with what I'm saying about 'exclusiveness to religion': it's not that they're dellusional, it's that they refuse to believe the truth or still think that their truth is right.

This has nothing to do with the argument though. We're not talking about beliefs that fill the gaps. We're talking about beliefs that are trying to fill gaps that are no longer there. And we're still claiming that they are there.

I was establishing a point to what the hidden(?) purpose of religion was.

Those that are unwilling to except reality, and continue to live in the false one are deluded. The rest that remain are there because they don't know any better. If 1 person thought that they could dunk a basketball into a hoop in the sky, you'd call them delusional. (exuse the extreme metaphor) If a million of them thought that, you'd tell me that some of them were just stubborn because they've been told all their life that they can.

"Truths" and "Rights" are interchangable. What one views as "right and "true", another will view it as false. Now, them viewing it as false makes the former delusional? No, it just means that the former are sticking to their opinion even if the evidence shows the contrary. Though, based on your other debate with Steamboat, your opinion has been changed no?

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

Believing in a deity isn't technically delusion. We've established that.
We're not talking about believing in a God's exclusivity. We're talking about an entire belief system being the one and only way- when there is contridictory evidence.

But I'm done regardless. Thanks for helping me exercise my noggin tonight.

And I'm saying that God's exclusivity is a belief system, dude. There cannot be evidence contrary to that.

 

[achromat666]

Is Exclusivism Literally Insane?

I don't see the answer as cut and dry as the question paints it. There are people that can feel they're right but see other viewpoints. It generally becomes a problem when they ignore facts which demonstrably prove their viewpoint as incorrect that the notion of insanity may truly in my view come into play. And even then it relies on degrees of belief/disbelief. Those that literally can't see any other viewpoint but their own have issues certainly, but it doesn't necessarily make them insane.

Is It As Cut and Dry as "You're Either Ignorant or Insane"?

No, ignorant or unwilling to accept seems more the case. Religious extremist are really the only people that much of this line of questioning seems to describe. It is certainly possible to not accept a fact and be sane. The lack of acceptance could still be a by product of ignorance but the option outside of ignorance is not automatically insanity.

 

[Davi323]

I am not going to get heavily involved in this thread, but I would ask, if you have faith, but don't believe that it is the only path towards salvation, what is the point of having that faith? Essentially, if you follow a religion that says, well, we are one path, there are a lot of others, and as long as you just act kindly to people, God has your back, regardless of whether you are a Jew, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, or whatever, what keeps you to that particular faith? As a Christian, if I not only believed that Christ was the key to salvation, but so is Mohammed, then why am I a Christian exactly? Whats the motivation here?

 

[RockFan89]

When all the facts are presented, such as accident of birth, history, and similarities between ideologies- it is delusional to still think that you and your religion hold the sole truth.

A delusion is a fixed belief that is either false, fanciful, or derived from deception.

I would argue that anyone who does not believe their religion is exclusively true is engaged in doublethink.

Christianity: Jesus is the son of God, died on a cross for our sins...
Islam: There is no God but God and Mohamed is his messenger...
Judaism: The God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob is the only true God and we are still waiting for him to send the Messiah
Hinduism: Life is just one continuous loop that runs until we have reached some level of enlightenment
Atheism: There is no God, there is no after life
etc.

If you can hold more than one of these beliefs, than you are not being rational. These beliefs are contradictions of one another.

And your definition of delusional is presupposing that none of the religions are exclusively true. You can't prove that, you are just assuming that no one religion is true so therefore anyone who believes so is delusional.

Honestly, anyone who comes with the 'all religions have some truth' stance just doesn't have the backbone to take up and stand for a position.

As the saying goes, a broken clock is right twice a day, same goes for religion. Just because a religion can stumble upon a truth doesn't give that religion legitimacy.

 

[Xemmy]

I would argue that anyone who does not believe their religion is exclusively true is engaged in doublethink.

Christianity: Jesus is the son of God, died on a cross for our sins...
Islam: There is no God but God and Mohamed is his messenger...
Judaism: The God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob is the only true God and we are still waiting for him to send the Messiah
Hinduism: Life is just one continuous loop that runs until we have reached some level of enlightenment
Atheism: There is no God, there is no after life
etc.

If you can hold more than one of these beliefs, than you are not being rational. These beliefs are contradictions of one another.

And your definition of delusional is presupposing that none of the religions are exclusively true. You can't prove that, you are just assuming that no one religion is true so therefore anyone who believes so is delusional.

Honestly, anyone who comes with the 'all religions have some truth' stance just doesn't have the backbone to take up and stand for a position.

As the saying goes, a broken clock is right twice a day, same goes for religion. Just because a religion can stumble upon a truth doesn't give that religion legitimacy.

I can hold beliefs from each of those if I so chose, without contridicting myself. For example, as I've stated before, I consider myself Christian Atheist. I believe in the morality of Christ, while remaining a non-believer. Believing all of the them to be the whole truth IS irrational, but no ideology makes that claim. Pluralism is the closest it gets, and it just believes that every way of faith is a legitament path- which doesn't mean that every religion is %100 true. It though that may be irrational, it's not delusional. Christians believe in Christianity, and Judaism. And Islam consider themselves to supercede Judaism and Christianity. And thank you for assuming an alterior motive.

And, If you had read what I wrote, maybe you would have noticed that I claim that only Exclusivists with a poper knowledge of the world and it's religions are delusional. In otherwords I'm attacking idiots, and musing about whether or not some of them may need proffesional help. A large portion of Christians have an inclusive belief system. And insulting Pluralists for "no back-bone" is a little pissy considering, unlike Exclusivists, Pluralism hasn't gotten anyone killed.


Oh, and btw-
There is a God in Islam
Atheism means lack of belief in God only, there are some that do believe in an afterlife. Hell, plenty of Buddhists are Atheist.
^_^ I guess you're among those that can claim ignorance.

And if "just because a religion can stumble upon a truth doesn't give that religion legitimacy" is the way you really think about things, you should examine that thought more. Comparing the human population of a perfect God's world to a broken clock....

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

I can hold beliefs from each of those if I so chose, without contridicting myself. For example, as I've stated before, I consider myself Christian Atheist. I believe in the morality of Christ, while remaining a non-believer. Believing all of the them to be the whole truth IS irrational, but no ideology makes that claim. Christians believe in Christianity, and Judaism. And Islam consider themselves to supercede Judaism and Christianity. And thank you for assuming an alterior motive. No, If you had read what I wrote, maybe you would have noticed that I claim that only Exclusivists with a poper knowledge of the world and it's religions are delusional. A large portion of Christians have an inclusive belief system. And insulting Pluralists for "no back-bone" is a little pissy considering, unlike Exclusivists, Pluralism hasn't gotten anyone killed.

And if "just because a religion can stumble upon a truth doesn't give that religion legitimacy" is the way you really think about things, you should point that criticism at your own religion before throwing it at others.

Some would argue that Unitarian Universalism makes this claim. And even still, I could make up that claim on the spot if it is non-existent. And that would not be irrational...because it is a religious belief, which in and of themselves, according to you, are not delusional.

 

[Xemmy]

Some would argue that Unitarian Universalism makes this claim. And even still, I could make up that claim on the spot if it is non-existent. And that would not be irrational...because it is a religious belief, which in and of themselves, according to you, are not delusional.

Excuse my careless wording. I was refering to the four that fit into the category with exlusivism. Exclusivism, Inclusivism, Skeptisism, and Pluralism. And if they do make that claim, then yes they're likely delusional as well.

"According to you". If you can show me that they fit the criteria for delusion, then I'll admit defeat. But yes, you're absolutely right to say they're irrational. All religious belief is. However, it's not delusion- unless they're having a psychotic episode, such as hearing voices, convusling on the floor, or halucinations.

 

[Calderownz]

Truthfully, believing in religion in and of itself is quite insane, when you think about it. However, in regard to the exclusivity most religious people seem to live by, it's quite interesting.

Statistically, you're just likely to be wrong. Even if somehow scientifically God was proven to exist, it's unlikely that you're correct about which version of God it is. With so many options, you're likely to be wrong if you chose what religion you wanted to follow. The fact that you don't really choose on a regular basis and you're usually born into a random religion, you're even more likely to be incorrect.