The line between religious belief and delusion

[xx_mortekai_xx]

I often wonder what the line is that actually separates a religious belief that has no objective support and delusion that has no objective support.

The reason I wonder this is very often, when asked for evidence to support their beliefs, religious believers will say that testimony and personal belief are the "evidence" for their belief. That may be fine and good, but without something objective, you have nothing better than beliefs that are supported by nothing more than your perception.

Delusion is defined as belief held in contrary to observed reality. A great many religious beliefs contradict observed reality.

So where is the line? Whats the difference?

[seyorni]

Perhaps religion is politically correct delusion.

[crimethinker]

For most people, religion is just a cultural identifier. They're born into a religious family and thus they adopt the same identifier. They don't even know what their Bible says, apart from a few of the Ten Commandments, perhaps.

Then there are those who interpret the Bible figuratively. I'm not sure what to think of them, because they make no definite claims. I guess they're like people who watch Star Wars and see the world in those terms.

But then, there are the Biblical literalists. They are most definitely delusional. The very beginning of the Bible, Genesis, proves this. The Earth formed before there was light? I don't think so. But, fortunately, I think they're a fairly small subset of Christians. The belief in God isn't contrary to reality, nor is adherence to the values the Bible promotes, or a figurative interpretation of the Bible (though I don't understand why you'd bother).

Once your religion becomes more than a philosophy, and starts to make factual claims that are unsupported or outright false (like Christianity), transparently so, you become delusional.

[Senor Hoint]

If it weren't culturally dominant no line would exist.

[Jettin]

If I take a guess, in the sense they're delusions, but at the same time, they're not. Just like a scientific theory, you can't prove them wrong. Unlike a delusion, which can prove doesn't exist, you can't disprove "god."

[Senor Hoint]

If I take a guess, in the sense they're delusions, but at the same time, they're not. Just like a scientific theory, you can't prove them wrong. Unlike a delusion, which can prove doesn't exist, you can't disprove "god."

Except that you can disprove any scientific theory. Indeed, the criterion for a theory to be considered "scientific" is the ability to disprove it.

[Jettin]

Except that you can disprove any scientific theory. Indeed, the criterion for a theory to be considered "scientific" is the ability to disprove it.

I'm refering to when a scientific theory becomes a law. It's not proven, until you've seen it happen. Take evoultion for example, we weren't there billions of years ago to see what happened. We can only guess.

[Jack]

Take evoultion for example, we weren't there billions of years ago to see what happened. We can only guess.

Evolution isn't a one-time process that only occurred in the distant past. It's an ongoing process that has been active as long as living things have inhabited the planet and it is still working. We observe it happening in the laboratory and in the field. While it's true that often we can only guess at the exact path evolution took in the ancient past, we aren't guessing about the process of evolution itself, only the way in which it functioned and the results it produced. That's what the theory of evolution attempts to explain.

[xx_mortekai_xx]

I'm refering to when a scientific theory becomes a law. It's not proven, until you've seen it happen. Take evoultion for example, we weren't there billions of years ago to see what happened. We can only guess.

Absolutely wrong. We have observed instances of speciation (the evolution of one species into another species). There is no need to guess.

And you seem to be conflating evolution with the origin of life. You DO realize that evolution and abiogenesis are two different subjects, and that evolution says nothing about the actual beginning of life, right?

Also, science works on a system of evidence. You dont actually have to see the thing to prove its existence. But you do have to be able to demonstrate it, using evidence, reason, and logic.

No scientific theory EVER becomes a law.

Laws describe, theories explain. The law of gravity says that if i drop a hammer in a positive gravity field, it will fall. There is no attempt in the law to explain why. General relativity does the explanation.

[Jettin]

Absolutely wrong. We have observed instances of speciation (the evolution of one species into another species). There is no need to guess.

Isn't that the theory of natural selection?

And you seem to be conflating evolution with the origin of life. You DO realize that evolution and abiogenesis are two different subjects, and that evolution says nothing about the actual beginning of life, right?

"Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers -- all related"

http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/

Also, science works on a system of evidence. You dont actually have to see the thing to prove its existence. But you do have to be able to demonstrate it, using evidence, reason, and logic.

No scientific theory EVER becomes a law.

Laws describe, theories explain. The law of gravity says that if i drop a hammer in a positive gravity field, it will fall. There is no attempt in the law to explain why. General relativity does the explanation

.

So the helicoentric theory, never became a law according to you.

[xx_mortekai_xx]

Isn't that the theory of natural selection?

No. Its the fact of evolution. the theory of natural selection is the explanation that ties all the observations and facts together.

"Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers -- all related"

http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/

yeah, and that doesnt require us to have existed billions of years ago to actually have evidence for it. The DNA evidence alone is enough to support TOE, particularly the fusion that occured that led to our chromosome 2

.

So the helicoentric theory, never became a law according to you.

No, the heliocentric theory never became law according to science. Theories dont become laws. Again, laws describe, theories explain.