If you ask most atheists they’ll tell you that religious theists are somehow profoundly mistaken about their belief. Just ask Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and your local blog commenters.
But there are plenty of very smart, thoughtful theists with very strong answers to most atheist critiques of religion. So why do atheists think believers are deluded and irrational?
Part of the answer can be found in this book by Stephan Prothero. Americans — the most overtly religious industrialized country on the planet — are religiously illiterate. Apparently only one in two adults can name just one of the four Gospels. When you consider that most atheists are moderately comfortable with Bible (all the better to debunk it), that makes the percentage of religious believers familiar with the basic sources of their faith even more embarassing.
We can extend this essential point further. Here’s my intentionally inflammatory contribution. If we were to chart the demographics of belief we would find, I suspect, that atheists are over-represented in academia and the professional classes, and under-represented amongst the hoi polloi. Exposure to higher education, science, the history of ideas — these are generally the seeds of unbelief. Those who are unwilling or incapable of critically engaging ideas, those who are happy with their intellectual status quo, those who accept what they are told because they trust the words of authority more than the ratiocination of their own brains — these are people who will never question their belief.
So those who think that theists are all wrong-headed and deluded are suffering from a sampling error. With apologies to John Stuart Mill, although it is not true that all those who believe in God are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people believe in God.
15 responses so far ↓
1 Anthony // Jun 3, 2007 at 3:40 am
I tried finding a good word to describe the supernatural phenomena for years. “Since it is a false belief, what is it the supernaturalists are spending all those hours doing in a church? How can I describe it?”
I tried lots of words… confusion, misunderstanding, dependence on intuition… nothing seemed to work until I used ‘delusion’. The idea of a fixed false belief that remains in spite of evidence just seemed to apply to a majority of the non-evidenced false believers.
I dunno, I suppose I’d be open to a new word to describe the phenomena. Any ideas?
Only thing is that I cannot deny that I believe theists believe in something that is false and lacks evidence. So what are they then? What’s going on? These are the question I tried to find term for, and delusion fit at the time. I’m open
2 Lynet // Jun 3, 2007 at 7:22 am
I confess it; I think theists are profoundly mistaken about their belief. Nonetheless, to jump from that to the conclusion that I think all theists are irrational in general is unfair. I have a dear friend who is Christian. He’s one of the smartest people I know, and he thinks he has good reasons to believe that God exists.
I think his reasons are entirely insufficient and dependent on his upbringing in a way he doesn’t realise. I’ve seen this eminently rational man fall prey to confirmation bias, purely because he has been used to attributing certain types of things to God from a very young age. But it isn’t fair to jump from my evaluation that his belief is an exceedingly complex and deeply held delusion to the idea that I think all those who believe in God are stupid people. I don’t. I’m not sure that Dawkins or Harris do, either.
3 dpoyesac // Jun 3, 2007 at 9:53 am
Anthony — I agree with what you say right up to the claim that theists “lack evidence.” Believers — at least the smart, thoughtful ones like Lynet’s friend — have evidence for their belief. It’s just not evidence that you or I find compelling.
There’s a big difference between being wrong and being deluded. There’s no shame in being wrong, especially when the evidence is sparse and hard to interpret. That’s the world we live in.
But to say someone is ‘deluded’ is is extraordinarily harsh. It’s saying that there is something wrong with them, and — frankly — it insults their intelligence. I’ve met some very smart theists. (Richard Swinburne, for instance. Dawkins trite dismissal of his work in The God Delusion really angered me.) For you to make a blanket statement that Swinburne, Plantiga, van Inwagen etc. are deluded is, to be blunt, arrogant.
I think they’re wrong. But I would never say they are deluded.
4 dpoyesac // Jun 3, 2007 at 9:58 am
Lynet — it sounds like you and I are on the same side. Sorry if it sounded like I was lumping you in with the rigid and uncompromising atheists I was critiquing.
Welcome to the club. You have a smart Christian friend you think is wrong but not irrational. You’re like me; you are a Neville Chamberlain atheist.
5 Lynet // Jun 3, 2007 at 4:05 pm
I reject the term ‘Neville Chamberlain atheist’. I’ll call things like I see them, and as much as possible make courtesy my only appeasement.
I get the impression that one of the main reasons PZ Myers gets frustrated with what he calls ‘NC atheists’ is because he perceives them as asking him to tone down his opinions in order to win a battle. If, like Myers and Moran, you think “the real battle is between rationalism and superstition”, then such calls amount to pressure to give up that fight in favour of the evolution/ID debate.
Personally, I’m not asking anyone to shut up. If that’s the way Myers and Moran see it, that’s the way they should call it. I don’t think atheists should deliberately tone down their beliefs; the middle ground isn’t going to disappear any time soon because there are atheists who don’t hold it, and sometimes it’s good to have people asking the hard questions. I do have reservations about language which appears to denigrate theists, but notice that I did actually use the word ‘delusion’ in my previous post. Seems to me the word is factual, but prefacing it by “complex and deeply held” is more factual, so go figure. The way you use it is a matter of politeness, and I’m not going to call out potential allies just because they’ve been mildly impolite.
6 dpoyesac // Jun 3, 2007 at 9:11 pm
Lynet;
It’s good you reject the ‘NC atheist’ tag. It’s awful, incorrect and insulting. I only use it to remind myself why I’m fighting my fellow non-believers sometimes.
I think you and I are generally on the same page. I just hate the word ‘delusion’ because it implies that theists cannot defend their position, it implies that they are irrational for holding it. Neither of these are true.
Some theists can’t defend their position, and some theists are irrational for believing. But the same could be said for some atheists.
I don’t see the current battle in terms of Reason versus Superstition. I see the battle between people who Reason, trying to find the truth — and people who claim that only they already know the absolute capital-T Truth. There are some good believers in the first camp, and some bad atheists in the second.
7 Anthony // Jun 5, 2007 at 7:50 pm
“deluded is, to be blunt, arrogant”
I can understand that.
Yet I still feel a strong need to have some way to describe the phenomena of “paranormal delusions”, as I currently describe the theist.
Now generally I am talking about the deluded who are creationists and bible literalists.
I think deluded works by the merits of its definition. I understand how it can be considered a instulting term, and it does say something is wrong about the person’s mental state. But… well, I do think such. I think they have fixed, false beliefs in spite of evidence. And yes, they may have evidence in a conversational use of the term, but they lack real, measurable, scientific evidence. If I didn’t think this, I wouldn’t be an atheist.
Others are far, far more intelligent and rational, such as Mike C on the Friendly Atheist blog - so liberally minded that he accepts *all* science! Yet he still sees paranormal entities existing prior to the Big Bang, and he still thinks human intuition and ancient books can hint at paranormal things beyond spacetime. It’s a lesser degree, but I still this this is a paranormal delusion.
Arrogant? Maybe, and likely to the receiver. Accurate diagnosis of the phenomena? So far, its the best I’ve been able to find. Even for the liberal, science loving theists.
8 dpoyesac // Jun 5, 2007 at 8:35 pm
Anthony;
I think we’re getting close. When you’re talking about creationists and literalists, I think ‘deluded’ is fine. After all, the last sentence of my post was:
I’m harping on the ‘delude’ tag not just because it’s arrogant or inaccurate — although it is — but because it also leads to wrong strategies. If you’re debating a literalist you assume they’re delude. But if you assume a smart, sharp theist is deluded you’ll never get anywhere. Because they aren’t deluded — they know exactly why they think what they think. What they think is wrong, but they think it for a reason.
9 Anthony // Jun 6, 2007 at 8:07 pm
True, I’ve heard some very eloquent reasoning with decent anecdotal ‘evidence’ to justify one’s progressive, liberal beliefs in paranormal entities.
However, I have never heard a sound argument with scientific evidence for the existence of anything paranormal - ghosts, magics, deities, angels, etc.
In every argument I’ve heard, they ultimately rest on some unevidenced assumption or personal intuition.
Just because a brilliant, wise, and sharp orator (say, MLK or Kennedy or whoever) can eloquently weave a mind boggling tapestry of reason to justify their paranormal beliefs… doesn’t make them true. MLK may impress me to believe in faeries with his powerful use of reasoning, but it doesn’t make it true.
The *only* equalizer here, the only thing holding back whimsical solipsism, is hard, measured scientific evidence.
Now I am watching all these billions of people talk to things that don’t exist, behave in ways to show reverence to things that don’t exist, create entire communities around false beliefs, cry in joy and awe over paranormal entities, and I ask myself, “What is going on?!? What is this phenomena of human existence?”
Concepts such as “theism” gave me nothing here - might as well say “nothingism”. I have searched for a more descriptive, accurate terminology, but “deluded” just seemed to fit best. The term encompasses false beliefs, lack of evidence, and places the phenomenon in the individual’s evolved brain, where it belongs. I truly do not mean this in an evil bullying way - I honestly feel it is the best term in the English language to describe the phenomena.
If you have something more accurate, please let me know. I’m open to improvement!
10 dpoyesac // Jun 7, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Personally, I’d keep ‘deluded’ for people who can’t give any reason for why they believe what they believe. If I could, I’d deny them the right to vote.
But for people who can give cogent reasons for what they believe?
The word I use is ‘mistaken.’ Sometimes ‘wrong.’ Of course they don’t have sound arguments, because ’sound’ implies the argument is valid and the premises (and therefore the conclusion) are true. So when someone is ‘wrong’ (but not deluded) I have to do some real brain-work to show them which premise in their argument is false.
Different diagnosis in each case, and different strategy for treatment.
11 Anthony // Jun 7, 2007 at 2:56 pm
dpoyesac,
I think we’re looking at the same phenomena, but seeing different things
If I may try to paraphrase… you see a continuum between delusionfaulty reasoning. Is that right?
I look at the exact same phenomena and see a continuum between simplistic delusionelaborate delusion. The simplistic delusion is based mostly on an overemphasis of the truth value of a single book. The elaborate delusion is the complex integration of the delusion into science, culture, history, and psychology using all sorts of logical inference.
I suppose my hunt for a solid way to describe the behaviors which result from this funky phenomena will continue.
If anything is to take away from this series of comments (and you may never believe me when I say this), I honestly use the word ‘delusion’ from a place of academic conceptualization, not from a place of cockiness and bullishness. I just can’t find a word that works better. “Mistaken” and “wrong” seem too simple and intangible to encompass the enormity of daily devotion and lifelong engagement of the paranormal misbelief.
I do respect your commitment to finding the best strategy for interacting with the phenomena.
12 Anthony // Jun 7, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Hmm, I had little arrows between those continua but they were filtered out. Here I’ll just use dots:
My paraphrase of your continuum:
delusion … faulty reasoning
My offered continuum:
simplistic delusion … elaborate delusion
13 dpoyesac // Jun 7, 2007 at 3:25 pm
A Ha! Now we’re getting somewhere.
I think you’re right in your paraphrase — mostly. I wouldn’t label the reasoning faulty, though; I’d label a basic premise as incorrect. The reasoning itself is often smart, clever, logically valid and very convincing. But good reasoning from faulty premises… gets you wrong answers.
And your second point really highlights the importance of the distinction, no matter how we phrase it. The ‘elaborate delusions’ or the ‘wrong conclusions’ do get integrated into culture, society, literature and so on. Once they’re integrated into the fabric of our lives they act as a justification of the ’simplistic delusion,’ making it harder to clear out the obviously pernicious stuff.
If I can take one more swipe at my usual foils, this is why I fight Dawkins, Harris and PZ Meyers. They focus so much on the 95% that’s foolish and obvious tripe, but they never seem to take the complex stuff seriously. They’re attacking the branches and the vines, while they are often summarily dismissive of the roots.
14 Anthony // Jun 7, 2007 at 4:36 pm
Well then, we certainly agree about the data. And even about the interpretation! We just don’t agree on the conceptualization used to identify the phenomena.
Many of the atheists who use the term, including myself, find a lot of connotative value and comprehensive meaning in ‘paranormal delusions’. Not because it hurts peoples feelings and we like to feel powerful.
You don’t agree, and that’s fine. I’m not too sure how far we can take this discussion
15 dpoyesac // Jun 7, 2007 at 7:14 pm
Finding out the precise source of a disagreement is — I would say — the most important step in every discussion. I think it’s a fine outcome. You’ve really help me put my inchoate ideas into a more rigorous form.
One of these days I’ll post my reasons for thinking that ‘paranormal’ and ’supernatural’ are inappropriate terms. I hope you’ll come back and disagree with me.
Leave a Comment