The Utility of Religious Delusion

I think your interpretation of religion is clouded due to your skewed perception of the subject.

For example: Religious belief is unjustified? Whether or not you find the justifications convincing is another matter: there exists a multitude of tomes specifically justifying religious belief. Thus, it is false to generalize that religious belief is unjustified.

I think that you would like for me to just love religion with all of my heart, without criticizing it's negative aspects and it's irrational beliefs about reality.

The justification of religion can only come in the form of studying religion as fiction.

I would appreciate if you directly answer my question. Do you think we need religious supernaturalism or mysticism to deal with the unfortunate aspects of reality and our condition?

It is odd that you find my perception of reality skewed when you state that I do not want you criticizing the negative aspects of religion even though I can be found criticizing negative aspects of religion.

You have concocted a perception of me, as an individual, that is derived from you preconceived notions of religious people instead of being derived from anything I have actually typed. My criticisms of religion are, for you, forgotten as you form a picture of me that matches your expectations - what you expect of someone who defends religion against particular criticisms.

Aha!

Are you unfamiliar with Higher Criticism? The founders of this discipline were religious men - theologians.

This is what i mean by skewed perception of the subject. You write as if religious material has never been studied as fiction. In reality, the study of religious material as fiction is ancient. Man has long studied mythology (religious material) as fiction, and in the 1850's theologians began studying the Bible in such a way.

But these facts do not enter your consideration of the subject.

Religious? No. I do not think "supernaturalism" is at all necessary.

I've actually formed my perception of you from past experience.

You've also seemed to form a perception of me as a clouded atheist who loathes religion and religious people, and that's not the case.

You may have criticized negative aspects of religion before, but I can't mention a negative aspect of religion without you apologizing for it, and so I have formed a perception of you, not all religious people, but you, as a professional apologetic. I may be wrong, but it's the impression you give me.

I think that you read me with such a critical eye that you are bound to misunderstand me. I didn't say that people have never read and studied religion as fiction. I know that plenty of people have and do study religion this way. In fact, I'm one of them, but of course I study and read religious mythology from a secular point of view. Like I said, reading religion this way can be justified as long as it doesn't transform into a mystical view of reality. I'm talking about the more common views of religious study and practice that are unjustified.

I didn't just say supernaturalism. I also said mysticism. Do you think that a mystical view of reality is necessary in order to deal with the unfortunate aspects of reality?

Then where on earth do you get the idea that I want you to "love religion" even though I have never said such a thing? Even though I have said that people need not be religious - that atheism is great and in no way wrong as compared to theism.

You are right: that's not the case. However, notice that you have imagined I have taken a particular view of you even though I have not taken that view nor ever said that is what i think of you. I think you do have a clouded view of religion, but I do not think you loathe religion, much less religious people.

You cannot mention a negative aspect of religion without me apologizing for it? I beg to differ. For example, you might criticize fundamentalism - I'd join you.

In other words: what you typed is not what you meant.

This is a common problem: the source of many of our disagreements.

Instead of noting that a problem is often found in religion you generalize about all religion. This is a mistake. Earlier you spoke of intellectual honesty as a virtue: avoiding false generalizations is an aspect of intellectual honesty.

You've never said that to me.

How is my view of religion clouded when I just said that studying religion can be justified if it's taken as fictional accounts and not applied to the nature of reality? Are you saying that my view of religion is clouded merely because I disagree with the claims and being religious?

If by fundamentalism you mean believing that Jesus walked on water, died on a cross for man's sins, arose from the dead, and will be returning to earth for Armageddon, then let's bash em . . . lol.

I believe I said that religious beliefs are unjustified. Religious beliefs are either underpinned by theistic supernaturalism or metaphysical mysticism, and both views of reality are skewed perspectives.

No: I'm saying your view of religion is clouded because you persist in making false generalizations. It may be that you do not believe the false generalizations you type, in which case your delivery is confused, not necessarily your understanding.

Heh, well, I'm not so into "bashing" as I am concerned criticism.

You said that religious beliefs are unjustified, then you said that religious belief can be justified when studied as fiction. Both claims cannot be true.

Maybe it's not my delivery that's confused, but the person it's delivered to who's confused. It only means that I should clarify for some people who may be sensitive to my statements.

I said that religious beliefs cannot be justified, but studying religion as fiction can be justified. Do you not see the difference between those two statements?

Do you have religious beliefs? If so, can you give me some examples?

Yes, I see the difference. However, it is a difference not present in your earlier comments.

You called religious beliefs unjustified and then said "The justification of religion can only come in the form of studying religion as fiction"

The "justification of religion". This is not the same as 'the justification of the study of religion'.

You see how delivery is important?

Yes and no respectively. I can give you examples of beliefs which are both religious and otherwise. For example, murder is wrong.

Yes, I do see how delivery is important, but I really think it depends on who's reading the words. The study of religion still entails religion. I'm saying that you can justify the study but not the beliefs.

Well I believe that I live on a planet that is third from the sun. That's still a belief, but I guess what you're saying is that certain beliefs can be reduced to opinions or sentiments while others have an objective status regardless of whether someone accepts them or not. Murder is wrong is a subjective statement, because it's mind-dependent and has emotive underpinnings. That does not mean that subjective sentences can't be justified, that just means that you can't justify them the same way you can justify objective sentences or propositions.

You still didn't give me an example of one of your religious beliefs. Please don't be so obscure?

At least your honest about not being able to justify the existence of God. I do admire your honesty.

Except I said no such thing.

The goodness or badness of religion is being hotly debated in current intellectual circles.

What needs to be mentioned, at this point, is the utility of religious beliefs.

Why do people strongly believe in unjustified beliefs?

What are the emotional underpinnings that drive this form of self-delusion?

With all of that in mind, we should now ask ourselves why and if we should settle for delusion in the face of these metaphysical, philosophical problems?

Do we need to delude our vision of reality in order to deal with its more unfortunate properties?

The fact that you're able to justify it (your belief)... does not make the belief justifiable.

I'd think that you have already granted the belief 'justified' as a "fact", the conclusion of your statement seems an error.

You implied that you couldn't justify it to others, and by others I assume people who don't think like you do.

That's likely because of the fact that you can't verify the existence of a God. I mean you may be able to justify it to a fideist or a mystic. but not to an empiricist positivist or a physicalist.

The fact that you're able to justify it to a like minded thinker or yourself does not make the belief justifiable.

What needs to be mentioned, at this point, is the utility of religious beliefs. Why do people strongly believe in unjustified beliefs? What are the emotional underpinnings that drive this form of self-delusion? I think that it is quite clear that religious beliefs serve as a coping mechanism for human suffering and discontent with reality. It's utility is strong in the sense that it presents answers to problems that are as untrue as they are easy. How easy is it for you to say that you'll see a dead loved one in an afterlife, or that your personality and bodily form will survive upon death, while a naturalist atheist has to approach the problem from a realistic and contemplative point of view? All religions, including the less corrupted mystic religions, are emotionally underpinned by fear and appeasement, which is evident due to religion's habit of applying human-like, intentional properties to the functions of nature and the universe. How frightening is it when man realizes the absurd nature of the universe in relation to himself; when he realizes that the universe doesn't only not revolve around him, but that the universe doesn't care about him at all? These emotional needs are religion's utility.