Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Knowing when to keep my mouth shut!
Options
-
02-02-2009 8:12pm#1I was in my Dad's house on Friday, we were getting ready to walk out of the room but he turned suddenly like he forgot something. He walked across the room and touched a picture of Pope John Paul. When he turned back around he had a little smile on his face. He was obviously thinking of his parents, both passed away. Or maybe he was just thinking that we would be that little bit safer on our journey (we were heading off for two days). I don't think anyone in their right mind would jump in and question what was going on. It was harmless. His simple ritual may be typical of a superstition that has brought so much pain and destruction into the world. But for him it was just a little thing he does that makes sense to him. It makes him feel closer to his parents and all the friends he will never see again. I'm an atheist so I'm not trying to defend or promote this superstition. Like you I've read Harris, Dawkins, Russell, Dennett, Hitchens, Grayling, Spinoza, Paine, Rushdie, Sagan, Mill, Hobbes, Hume, Orwell and countless, countless others. Im convinced by and relish in the natural order of things. But what is missing in some of the above, in particular Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris, is the respect for and appreciation of such humble displays of humanity. Christopher Hitchens has said that he hates his enemies and he wants them to be killed. Harris has come very close to approving of torture. Dawkins doesn't care what people's hopes and dreams consist of, he's only concerned with what evidence people have for believing them (when he heard Hitchens talking about how beautiful religious poetry can be he simply declared "but surely it's not evidence of God" - Sad). As much as I love the work of these men lets call a spade a spade. None of the above has ever seriously tried to approach the religion of somebody like my father (let alone their own occasional hypocrisy) whose belief is based on nothing more than missing loved ones and hoping that those of us still on earth will be here for a little bit longer. My father would never wish anybody dead, he thinks torture is cruel and barbaric and he respects people right to hope for the impossible, even if he doesn't realise he's hoping for the same. The hardline atheists among us, myself included, would do well to think before we tar every believer with the same brush. I almost crossed the line with my father that day by questioning his beliefs. I stopped just short of offending somebody who has spent his life telling me to think for myself, my father has thought for himself and he seems to be happy with his conclusions. I'm not sure it's my place to tell an elderly man he's delusional. That's just my personal opinion. If you agree or disagree I'd love to hear yours....2
Comments
-
Why would you tell your father he is delusional?0
-
I'm pretty sure most atheists on this board are happy to leave Christians have their beliefs and let them do their own thing. It is only when either
1) They try to force their beliefs on others (See "for the love of God save me" thread)
2) Their beliefs negatively impact on their dealings with others or their opinions of others (see "homosexuality as a sin" over on Christianity)
3) They try to fuse Church and State and have domestic policy based on religion (see pretty much every thread ever made on either board)
I don't mind that Christians believe in a lot of things I find strange. That is what they believe and there is no advantage to really be had from trying to change that if they are not breaking the three rules above. For the most part I find Christians to be sane and reasonable people, and I would most certainly be the one in the wrong to assault them for what they believe.
However, I firmly believe that religion is something which must be strictly personal. If religious people stray outside these boundaries that I get irked.0 -
feck thats a horrible thing to say about your father. Tis atheists like yourself that make us all sound like numpties. Before the mods pop in i said sound like numpties i didnt actually call op a numpty.0
-
If your Dad brought you up to think for yourself and hes not harming anyone with what he believes in then I wouldnt dream of strongly confronting a person like that on their beliefs. Hes not perpetuating the indoctrination so hes one of the good guys.
Heres some info in a roundabout way through Douglas Adams that shows that there can be a positive use to nonsense too.Douglas Adams wrote:There's a very interesting book - I don't know if anybody here's read it - called 'Man on Earth' by an anthropologist who use to be at Cambridge, called John Reader, in which he describes the way that… I'm going to back up a little bit and tell you about the whole book. It's a series of studies of different cultures in the world that have developed within somewhat isolated circumstances, either on islands or in a mountain valley or wherever, so it's possible to treat them to a certain extent as a test-tube case. You see therefore exactly the degree to which their environment and their immediate circumstances has affected the way in which their culture has arisen. It's a fascinating series of studies. The one I have in mind at the moment is one that describes the culture and economy of Bali, which is a small, very crowded island that subsists on rice. Now, rice is an incredibly efficient food and you can grow an awful lot in a relatively small space, but it's hugely labour intensive and requires a lot of very, very precise co-operation amongst the people there, particularly when you have a large population on a small island needing to bring its harvest in. People now looking at the way in which rice agriculture works in Bali are rather puzzled by it because it is intensely religious. The society of Bali is such that religion permeates every single aspect of it and everybody in that culture is very, very carefully defined in terms of who they are, what their status is and what their role in life is. It's all defined by the church; they have very peculiar calendars and a very peculiar set of customs and rituals, which are precisely defined and, oddly enough, they are fantastically good at being very, very productive with their rice harvest. In the 70s, people came in and noticed that the rice harvest was determined by the temple calendar. It seemed to be totally nonsensical, so they said, 'Get rid of all this, we can help you make your rice harvest much, much more productive than even you're, very successfully, doing at the moment. Use these pesticides, use this calendar, do this, that and the other'. So they started and for two or three years the rice production went up enormously, but the whole predator/prey/pest balance went completely out of kilter. Very shortly, the rice harvest plummeted again and the Balinese said, 'Screw it, we're going back to the temple calendar!' and they reinstated what was there before and it all worked again absolutely perfectly. It's all very well to say that basing the rice harvest on something as irrational and meaningless as a religion is stupid - they should be able to work it out more logically than that, but they might just as well say to us, 'Your culture and society works on the basis of money and that's a fiction, so why don't you get rid of it and just co-operate with each other' - we know it's not going to work!0 -
Not at all Hurin, I just observe that a lot of our arguments come down to the effect that Christian doctrine has had on nations and national policy (in such issues as abortion, gay marriage etc)0
-
Advertisement
-
MatthewVII
seanybiker
I'm confused :pac:0 -
-
Why would you tell your father he is delusional?
I wouldn't. That's the point I'm trying to make. The word "delusional' is a reference to Richard Dawkins 'The God Delusion'. Dawkins has taken it upon himself to label all believers delusional. As an atheist I'm just saying that unlike Dawkins I don't think it's my place to label people in this way. I have a curious mind and I felt an urge to at least ask my father what comfort he gets from touching an image of the pope. My father and I have very open conversations and I felt it was a topic I could talk to him about. But I had second thoughts and decided it was something personal of his and maybe it was better left out of conversation. If you think I'm speaking somehow disrespectful about my Father you have completely misunderstood me. Im simply saying that I believe we should distinguish between people like my father, who's religion is personal and of concern only to himself, and people who have extreme or intrusive religious beliefs and practices. Its a distinction obvious to you and me but not to every atheist. Including people like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris who seem to be more than happy to label and categorise people simply because they subscribe to one religion or the other. It's not a new point I'm making but merely one that deserves reiteration.0 -
Isn't the point that he wouldn't do that?Why would you tell your father he is delusional?
There's usually never any disagreement when Dawkins calls believers delusional, or when users here call people on the Christianity forum the same - so why are people indignant when that person is a family member?seanybiker wrote: »feck thats a horrible thing to say about your father. Tis atheists like yourself that make us all sound like numpties.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
seanybiker wrote: »feck thats a horrible thing to say about your father. Tis atheists like yourself that make us all sound like numpties. Before the mods pop in i said sound like numpties i didnt actually call op a numpty.
I've read over my original post and I'm struggling to see what you find horrible about what I said. What I've written does not in any way disrespect my Father. If you think I have then you have either not read my entire post, in which case don't comment on it, or you have misunderstood what I said. Can you point out which of the below is so horrible.
1) I described his blessing of the pope as a humble display of humanity which deserves appreciation.
2) I described how gentle and thoughtful this act of remembrance seemed to be.
3) I stated that his religion is based around the hope of seeing loved ones again and that he wishes everyone a long and healthy life.
4) I described his moral position on the barbarity of torture.
5) I described his respect for people who believe in things which may seem fanciful or unrealistic to some but no less worthy of respect.
6) I stated that the religious practice of my father should not be compared to the extreme or intrusive observances of others.
7) I described how he brought me up to think for myself, to make my own decisions, and that he has lived his life thinking for himself and not believing in something because it's the social norm. That's an important character trait which he has passed on to me.
8) Lastly, I made it clear that I didn't think it was the place of any atheist, including myself, to call him delusional based on
his religious beliefs. That again is a reference to Richard Dawkins who seems to think such blacklisting is fair game.
Which of the above are horrible or otherwise offensive?
My intention was to reiterate an old but valuable point about religious tolerance. You misunderstood what I said, so you accuse me of insulting my own Father and practically called me an idiot...
Grow up.0 -
This is maybe the key bit here. Give him a chance to respond.minusorange wrote: »My intention was to reiterate an old but valuable point about religious tolerance. You misunderstood what I said, so you accuse me of insulting my own Father and practically called me an idiot...
Grow up.0 -
This is maybe the key bit here. Give him a chance to respond.
Fair enough, that might explain why he took me for being offensive. But it doesn't excuse why he was offensive toward me. Maybe responding with a counter argument would be the more adult thing to do. I'm 24, I stopped childish name calling about 10 years ago. It's probably unfair of me to expect the same of everyone.0 -
Have you not already labeled them simply by being an atheist?minusorange wrote: »I wouldn't. That's the point I'm trying to make. The word "delusional' is a reference to Richard Dawkins 'The God Delusion'. Dawkins has taken it upon himself to label all believers delusional. As an atheist I'm just saying that unlike Dawkins I don't think it's my place to label people in this way.
Let me explain. You are an atheist. By virtue of that you are not a theist. You think theists are wrong, otherwise you would be one, or possibly agnostic.
So if they are wrong, then what explanation do we have for why they believe something despite it not being true.
Dawkins theory is that religion is a form of delusion. Therefore people who are religious are delusional. After all delusion is simply a mental state of believing something that is untrue with with little or no external reason to believe it (in contrast to say a deception, which is believing something to be true because you have been deceived into believing it by something external)
So Dawkins labeling religious people delusional seems perfectly fine to me. If you have a better explanation as to why they believe something that is not true then feel free to present that.minusorange wrote: »Im simply saying that I believe we should distinguish between people like my father, who's religion is personal and of concern only to himself, and people who have extreme or intrusive religious beliefs and practices. Its a distinction obvious to you and me but not to every atheist. Including people like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris who seem to be more than happy to label and categorise people simply because they subscribe to one religion or the other.
I don't think Dawkins or Harris would have told your father he is delusional either. That is what I meant by my question, Why would you tell him that? Or to put it another way, Why do you think Dawkins would have told him that?
What reason would Dawkins have to have told him that if he was not discussing theism or atheism?
There is a difference between having a position on something and offering that position to people who didn't ask for your opinion. Dawkins published a book and people are perfectly free not to buy it, to ignore it, or to read it and think he is nuts.
Using a Christian example, I don't give a flying fig if Christians believe people are going to hell. That is a big difference between believing something and telling people randomly that they are going to hell, possibly upsetting them in the process.
It is all about consent. Has a person volunteered to discuss this with you.0 -
After all delusion is simply a mental state of believing something that is untrue with with little or no external reason to believe it
It might be worth pointing out that "delusion" is not actually the correct term for this. The word "delusion" means a fixed, false belief which is not in keeping with social trends of the time. So while we may debate on whether belief in God is false, it most certainly is in keeping with social trends. So, to cite another example, a young girl who has a normal BMI might be convinced she is massively overweight, and while this is not a true belief, it is not a true delusion either, as western society promotes young girls having a very slim body figure.
I think the correct term is "overvalued idea"
Of course, I think that at some point in the past belief in God must have been a delusion, when it was a deviant way of thinking instead of gaining social acceptance.
Just nitpicking, but it's something worth bearing in mind.0 -
Have to say I've never heard of 'delusion' being defined with reference to current social trends. I understand it to mean a fixed belief held with absolute conviction which is not changeable despite there being no evidence of its being true or significant evidence to the contrary.0
-
Have to say I've never heard of 'delusion' being defined with reference to current social trends. I understand it to mean a fixed belief held with absolute conviction which is not changeable despite there being no evidence of its being true or significant evidence to the contrary.
Well this is from my time studying psychiatry, where it has a very specific definition. The DSM-IV definition is -
"A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everybody else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture"0 -
That's an interesting definition, by virtue of the requirement that the 'subject' should be in the minority in their belief.MatthewVII wrote: »Well this is from my time studying psychiatry, where it has a very specific definition. The DSM-IV definition is -
"A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everybody else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture"
There a witty quote referencing this that I can't quite recall!0 -
In response to Wicknight
First of all let me say I'm a massive fan of both Richard Dawkins and The God Delusion. You seem to start out your post defending a man and a book I have very little, if any problem with. Im not entirely sure we are in disagreement here, I agree with practically everything in your post but I think we're getting hung up on my use of the word delusion and my references to Dawkins and Harris. My major concern is how such labelling might impact the lives of people who are perhaps too old to properly digest the information in the book, and that we should be careful not to offend by accident or design, those that have no use of such commentary. Who are maybe at a stage in their lives where a radical shift in thought wouldn't be desirable (I'm speaking mainly of my parents here and I don't presume to know what every older person needs in their lives).
I think one of the dramatic effects his book has had on believers is being labelled delusional. I don't think at any stage in my previous post's did I say Dawkins is wrong in what he says! You seem to think I disagree with him and have some other explanation for why people believe what they do. My main gripe with the word delusional is that regardless of how you define it, like previous posts have done, it has a profoundly negative impact when applied to someone who may not have read and understood the book.
Take the media hype and often biased press coverage that surrounded it's release and subsequent promotional tour. That was a good example of how people took all they needed from the title to take offence and effectively close down dialogue with Dawkins wherever they could. When Dawkins calls people delusional he is doing so within the confines of a book, and can spend hundreds of pages arguing his case. Clearly laying down the reasons why the word is suitable in his context, and not deliberately offensive.
A similar situation occurred with his book The Selfish Gene. People who had not read the book took it to mean that certain emotions like selfishness, anger and jealousy could be applied to us at a genetic level. He was accused of having a rather cold take on biology and was labelled by many on the christian right as promoting social Darwinism and even racist exclusivity. Dawkins himself has went on record as saying he regretted the title he chose because despite it's success it's still misunderstood by those who are easily offended, or simply those that haven't read the book
A point I had hoped to make but apparently failed to is that the abrasive rhetoric and terminology of someone like Dawkins or Harris could have an alienating and profoundly offensive effect on older people like our parents, who having not read the book and understood the argument, may find the title alone extreme and deliberately provocative. I have no problem with this type of language offending people who spend their lives promoting anti-human doctrines, repressing sexuality and gorging themselves on the lives of others. These people deserve the ridicule, criticism and tongue lashing that they seem to be on the end of lately. My primary concern is that someone like my Father would be offended, embarrassed or even ashamed of their simple beliefs because they felt they were on the receiving end of some sort of intellectual and literary assault, regarding one of the few things that has true significance in their remaining years.
Regarding your second point.
I never said at any stage that either Dawkins or Harris would call anybody delusional in person outside of a consensual conversation. What I said is that Dawkins and Harris are happy to label and categorise people of all faiths, without due recognition that peoples beliefs widely vary in their observance and extremity. That is largely true. They don't often enough distinguish between extreme scriptural literalists and very mildly superstitious people. Its a crucial distinction that is not made as much as it should be.
My whole argument is about shielding harmless people from what they might themselves consider an assault on their own personal faith. I've taken a fairly strong and vocal position on atheism in the past and to my shame I have been guilty of occasionally overstepping the mark, offending well intentioned people. As I mentioned in an earlier post I have open and deep conversations with my father, and although I've never spoken to him on his religious beliefs before I know it's something I could approach him with in comfort. My reservations came when I realised that the language and tone I'm used to speaking about religion in might cause him offence. From there I realised how a term like delusion, when not described as it is in the full length of the book, could cause him an even greater offence. That's when I decided to write down what I thought and post it here, not because it's of earth shattering importance, but because I wanted your opinions.0 -
MatthewVII wrote: »Well this is from my time studying psychiatry, where it has a very specific definition. The DSM-IV definition is -
"A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everybody else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture"
that not actually just about social beliefs, but scientific ones too, everyone knows there no god.
it delusional when they say there is.
anyway the op posts is about having ago at your parents hoping you travel safely and she is presuming most here wouldn't either0 -
Advertisement
-
lostexpectation wrote: »that not actually just about social beliefs, but scientific ones too, everyone knows there no god.
it delusional when they say there is.
People who claim to know there is no God, or the contrary, people who claim to know there is a God are all deluded.. The reality is we can't ever know anything, knowledge will always be incomplete, meaning we can only assume things as true and never really know either way..0 -
100% agree. If they leave me alone, I'll leave them alone.minusorange wrote: »That's just my personal opinion. If you agree or disagree I'd love to hear yours....
If they try to push their views on me, then it's game on.0 -
I would suggest people who claim to know there is no god are not deluded, just unwilling to admit that it is impossible to confirm the non-existence of something, invisible, intangible, with no confirmed characteristics.People who claim to know there is no God, or the contrary, people who claim to know there is a God are all deluded..0 -
I would suggest people who claim to know there is no god are not deluded, just unwilling to admit that it is impossible to confirm the non-existence of something, invisible, intangible, with no confirmed characteristics.
I think it's deluded for anyone to claim to know anything (except perhaps the claim "the one thing I know is I can't know anything else"). We process every single bit of information entering our heads based on a multitude of unverifiable assumptions, making any conclusions we draw assumptions in themselves.. Making the complete knowledge of anything an impossible goal..0 -
Whereas that might be true on a philosophical level, it's impractical in relation to actually achieving anything in Real Life. So for the purposes of getting out of bed in the morning we need make any number of assumptions. However "god" is a philosophical question and thus subject to the oft' times infuriating rules of that discipline.I think it's deluded for anyone to claim to know anything (except perhaps the claim "the one thing I know is I can't know anything else"). We process every single bit of information entering our heads based on a multitude of unverifiable assumptions, making any conclusions we draw assumptions in themselves.. Making the complete knowledge of anything an impossible goal..0 -
Whereas that might be true on a philosophical level, it's impractical in relation to actually achieving anything in Real Life. So for the purposes of getting out of bed in the morning we need make any number of assumptions. However "god" is a philosophical question and thus subject to the oft' times infuriating rules of that discipline.
I think the misrepresentation of knowledge causes harm on a very practical level.. Most people don't have any realistic concept of what the scientific method is all about as they live in a "deluded" world of absolutes, and as a result misrepresent it's findings.. Criticism of evolution being "just a theory" is one common example of such misrepresentation.. Science can never have anything but theories on the world owing to "incomplete knowledge", but when compared to the absolutes offered by religion, the balance lies in the latter's favour..
I think teaching the impossibility of complete knowledge should form the foundation of science based curriculum in primary or secondary level, such that people actually understand what it's all about, and aren't so easily duped by the absolutes offered by theism..0
Advertisement