Religious Delusions
By TNSr5r@unseen.is, November, 2013
One of the many possible examples of Soil Type One in the Parable of the Soils, as recorded in Chapter 4 of Mark, is the intellectual person who is just too open-minded and inclusive to believe in the impossibly confining views and demands expressed in the Bible. And these so-called Intellectuals all tend to look and sound the same.
In psychological circles, one is often labeled as paranoid schizophrenic when one builds one or more delusions, or fictional worlds, within which one likes to dwell, or continually dwells, to the exclusion of what the rest of us call “reality.”
In religious circles, we can see that exact same situation.
Some of the symptoms, or traits, of a strong paranoid delusion include: a clear “we versus they” duality; an obvious but usually undefined set of rules for this delusional world; a tendency to quickly judge those who do not spontaneously obey these rules without explanation, who do not know the rules without being told them, as being deficient or inferior in some way; a developing or evolving story line; few, if any, are on the “we” side and almost everyone is on the “they” side”; “facts” to support the delusion are taken from many sources, even diametrically opposed sources, but nearly always taken out of context so they can be misconstrued or misrepresented easily; underlying assumptions and presumptions – sometimes even the primary beliefs are unconscious beliefs, with the delusional individual often unaware of them.
Unfortunately, a strong religious delusion shares almost all the same symptoms.
The purpose for this essay is not to outline a strategy to change or “convert” these people. The people who maintain these religious delusions are usually quite firm in their beliefs, and seldom open to changing them. Any discussion or debate of the issues is fun for the intellectual exercise, but normally become frustrating all individuals who are involved. In other words, argument is probably a waste of time. Further, argument will almost always degrade to personal insults and subjective perspectives.
Allow me to offer some definitions for the purpose of our discussion:
Christian – one who perceives oneself to be a follower of Jesus as the Christ, the Messiah, to the exclusion of all other religious leaders; one who perceives the Bible as the primary religious text concerning Jesus
Evangelical Christian – a Christian who perceives himself or herself to be on the conservative side of the collection of individuals claiming to be Christians; one who believes that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus are established historical and spiritual facts; one who believes that the Bible is inspired by God in the original texts and TRUTH for all Christians; one who believes that the purpose of all Believers is to live like Jesus as closely as possible
Bible – a collection of writings involving dozens of writers over thousands of years compiled into a document that was and is inspired by God and accurate in the original texts; a “book” that exists today only in translation, which is just that: the result of sincere people performing a careful and detailed translation using what they believed to be the best texts available to them at the time; the major translations today being so similar in text that the differences are more in the depths and nuances of meaning than in actual meaning of the words; does not include some later attempts to “translate” based on a clear and usually stated attempt to change the meaning of earlier translations in order to conform more to the current social and religious beliefs of a minority of people who may not even call themselves Christians (e.g. a certain “modern translation” by a well-known science fiction author to render God either female or gender neutral)
Over the years, I have found myself put in the position of dialoging, even debating, with quite a number of people who refer to themselves as Christians in their earlier lives but later tended to pull back from that description. They have all been quite intelligent and well-read. And they have all tended to embrace the fairly common belief that all major religions teach the same core “truths” and worship the same God by one name or another. Within their ranks, they are not unique but often believe they are.
I have always treasured these discussions, not so much because I saw any victory in pushing or pulling the other individual in any given spiritual direction, but because I valued the refreshing and stimulating thought processes involved in these often intense discussions. One must be an original thinker in order to swim upstream against the current, and I will always appreciate an original thinker. But from these discussions, I have observed some similarities in those thought processes that I thought I might put forth, evidence that not ALL this thinking is original. And I have decided to write about why I believe at least some of those thought processes are inherently wrong, internally inconsistent, and even intellectually dishonest. And these beliefs are all a closed world, are all self-reinforcing, and are all accountable to ONLY their own subjective realities.
I am not saying that any of the individuals were dishonest, but that certain similarities in the thought processes of these people tended toward internal inconsistency and even intellectual dishonesty. In truth, I believe that each of these people were engaged in a spiritual delusion of monumental importance, and most were not aware of this fact.
Allow me to describe and to build a delusion of my own for you to review and comment.
Naturally, there are some ground rules that we must accept for our discussions, or we can go no further. This condition of mandated ground rules is, of course, the norm for all spiritual delusions I have encountered, although normally left unspoken until it was needed to defend the delusion.
First, there is a God, and there is only one God, but this God is NOT like any God or god worshiped in any of the well-known religious traditions; similar to all of them, but different from any of them. Instead, my God is more an amalgam of a number of these traditions. God is, after all, a representation of a particular religious perspective, but in reality the same God is worshiped by all. What you call your God is merely your view of God from the position where you stand. Others are standing in different positions and see a slightly different view. It is pompous and prideful for you to claim that your view from your perspective is correct to the exclusion of all other views and perspectives. God is too great to be limited by any man’s vision and understanding.
Second, God has chosen to reveal himself in many ways and to many groups of people. I accept the Bible and the words of Jesus as authoritative. I also accept other religious writings and other religious figures as authoritative. But we must accept the proviso that the Bible we have today was written by many authors over thousands of years. We must accept that no effort of man is without flaws. We must accept that almost all biblical authors had little or no knowledge of the other authors, or of the other texts, and so had no opportunity to coordinate and cooperate with the messages of other writers. As a result, the collection of stories and letters that is today accepted as the Bible must also be understood to be both incomplete and embellished. Incomplete because there is no reason to believe that God is finished inspiring authors to write; embellished because newer writers and translators over time have added snippets, perhaps entire sections, in order to clarify what they believed was the intent and meaning of the original authors and the original texts.
Third, I accept a long list of authors and teachers as authoritative about God: who and what he is, what he is like, what he wants, and how to get to know him. I quote these authorities often in discussions of God and religious issues, and I expect you to have read these authorities and understand what they believe when we discuss these issues. If you cannot, then we both must accept that you can have very little of importance to add to our discussion or to my beliefs. We both must accept that you are intellectually limited for purposes of our discussion. I will USUALLY listen to what you have to say with some patience, but only with that proviso. I am, after all, a Christian, and Christians are if nothing else loving and open to others of a different belief.
Fourth, the only restriction to our discussion, and this is a major point that cannot be debated or negotiated, is the fact that no author or teacher viewed as a conservative Christian is accepted as authoritative unless only certain claims are allowed and other claims can be dismissed, at my discretion. Any author or teacher who once held a conservative Christian view of God and who has more recently modified his views to be more open and inclusive, is naturally considered to be more authoritative in his more recent views. All honest thinkers must be open to further enlightenment, and those who are not, those who have remained unchanging in their views over time, have limited content to add to our discussions.
Fifth, the actual context of any biblical reference is insignificant. What any biblical author or character has said is at issue; who it was said to, what those listening believed, how they responded, what was going on before or during what was said – all are unimportant factors when it comes to interpreting what was said and what we should “hear” from what was said. What those people intended is never as important as what we conclude. Included in this ground rule is the fact that there is no TRUTH, no absolute, no “fact” that is true under any and all circumstances and for any and all people. Everything in this life is subject to interpretation and to personal application in ways that might vary from individual to individual. In other words, you can never tell me that I am wrong.
And last, it is stipulated by all parties in any discussion that sources and claims which are contrary to those offered by Evangelical Christians are to be accepted as equally authoritative, and are acceptable as a complete and effective rebuttal to any claim or quote made by an Evangelical Christian, regardless of the source or of the beliefs of the source.
So what will our discussion sound like?
Like every conversation I have had with a knowledgeable cynic who had the above perspectives on these issues. Like almost every discussion I have had with a Soil Type One individual.
No matter what is stated, one or more of the ground rules allows for a counter that can pretty much stop the conversation.
And what really is the purpose of those ground rules? It allows me to pick and choose what I believe and who I believe, and does not allow you to offer any argument that I cannot easily dismiss.
In fact, my favorite tactic is to counter a conservative argument with some quote from someone famous, usually someone with strongly stated spiritual views. He or she doesn’t have to have any particular educational qualifications, just strongly stated views that are contrary to some conservative view stated by you. For example, you can make some claim about God and I could rebut your claim by quoting some politician or some scientist, ANY politician or scientist, who disagrees with your claim. And since any claim by anyone is considered a credible claim when it is counter to any claim offered by a conservative Christian, then my claim trumps your claim and you cannot win.
My delusion is self-validating and self-reinforcing. No one can win any argument against me because I am in control of what is and what is not authoritative.
And the real issue is that I am in control. I decide what is right and wrong, who is right and wrong, what is acceptable and not acceptable. And often I do so by claiming that there IS no right and wrong. I get to control the argument. And because I control the argument, I cannot lose the argument. Ever.
AND I GET TO DEFINE GOD!
While I will NEVER admit it, I have become my own idol. I have taken the position of God. I have defined what is TRUTH. My intellect has become the most important and most powerful force in the universe. I can quote more authorities than you. I can reference more books and authors and theologians than you. I can assume without proof that I MUST be right because I CAN reference more books and authors and theologians than you.
He who knows, wins.
And since I control who and what God is, I don’t have to FEAR taking any authority away from him. I don’t have to FEAR making God a creation of mine.
I don’t have to FEAR God!
The ONLY thing I have to fear is for you to understand the presuppositions and the stipulations of our discussion. I cannot admit to them, and you cannot delineate them. All the presuppositions and stipulations MUST remain unspoken. And if anyone points them out, I will deny them. No matter how much I have used any particular item above, I will deny believing that item or using that item.
I KNOW that the presuppositions and stipulations are totally unreasonable, totally illogical, and totally unfair. But my entire peace and confidence, my entire life, depends on those views. And it depends on those views remaining unspoken, so I never have to confront how unreasonable and illogical and unfair are the foundations of my belief system and my life.
As long as you and I remain within the confines of those presuppositions and those stipulations, we can have a profitable and fruitful conversation.
After all, I am open-minded, right?