Why the God Delusion Won't Go Away
A Baltimore mother accused of joining a cult and starving her child says she was acting on her religious beliefs. What's the difference between extreme religious conviction and delusion? Between a religion and a cult?
Children believe that their mothers love them. The proof they have is the same as the proof of God - a subjective feeling. The fact that God is subjective doesn't make the deity unreal, but it radically shifts the burden of proof. All subjective states are personal and therefore impossible to verify objectively. There is no way to tell if two people looking at a daffodil see the same shade of yellow, much less that they are referring to the same thing when they use the word "God." Even brain scans provide nothing more than a rough location for where such thoughts occur, nothing about their validity.
Skeptics make hay out of this situation. In his wildly popular book The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins marshaled the force of science against God almost entirely by making one point over and over: God can't be objectively verified. He didn't seem to realize that the point itself is pointless. Beauty, truth, love, morality, ethics, and every other aspect of our inner life cannot be verified by science, either. Shifting the burden of proof to the inner world leaves scientific measurement behind, but it doesn't make beauty, truth, morality, and the rest false. If I find Picasso beautiful and you don't, our disagreement isn't a matter of who's right and who's wrong. Each person's consciousness is a domain of personal experience that relies on itself. Having a right to your own opinion, however bizarre, is the same as asserting your own awareness.
Of course, the inner and outer world blend, and therefore they sometimes come to blows. Society tends to be happy with organized religion but unhappy with cults (even though organized religion can be defined as a cult with a large following). There's not much debate on the spiritual side when either one breaks the law. Pedophile priests in the Catholic Church are prosecuted, as the members of the One Mind Ministries will be if they participated in starving a child. As for whether any of them are delusional, we refer to psychiatrists to make that determination on a medical basis.
Here again skeptics have a field day. They see no difference between thinking that Christ rose from the dead and thinking that a poor starved child in Baltimore can do the same. But they overplay their hand (Dawkins being particularly egregious) by lumping all spiritual experiences together. Many of the greatest figures in history have had profound spiritual experiences without being delusional. Their experiences have done more to shape human destiny than any other force besides war. To call Socrates, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and Buddha hopelessly deluded because an academic pedant like Richard Dawkins feels superior to them is absurd.
What this all amounts to is that religion is entangled with the best and worst of human behavior. It is probably unique that way. In the name of loving God devotees have inflicted untold violence and composed the most beautiful poetry and music. It may be past time to radically reform organized religion or even dispense with it altogether (as I tend to believe). But the reason won't be to cleanse the world of delusion. The reason will be that a better, more fulfilled spirituality wants to be born.
Published in the Washington Post
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
"God can't be objectively verified. He didn't seem to realize that the point itself is pointless."
That point is NOT pointless when people are oppressive or violent and take lives because of their own subjective religious feelings. I've never heard of an atheist going to a market with a bomb tied to their back because they believe there is no god. Or denying the gay community equal rights because they believe there is no god. Clearly you are offended by Richard Dawkin's opinions, however, his opinion against religion and a life without "a god" is a very important one.
Wow........that article has definitely provided some food for thought. Thank you, Deepak.
continued from below:
melmoid,
You're right we seem to have a problem with semantics, let me define my terms.
Gnosticism and Agnosticism deals with KNOWLEDGE:
>the gnostic claims "I KNOW there is/isn't a god or gods"
>the agnostic claims "I DON'T KNOW if there is a god or gods"
Theism and Atheism deal with BELIEF:
>the theist BELIEVES in a god or gods
>the atheist is WITHOUT BELIEF in any gods
You can be any combination of the two:
>a gnostic theist claims "I know there is a god & I believe ..."
>an agnostic theist claims "I can't know , but I believe anyway"
>a gnostic atheist claims "I know there is no god & don't believe ..."
>an agnostic atheist claims "I can't know , I have no belief ..."
Personally, I think gnostic theists & gnostic atheists are making false claims. They're claiming knowledge of something that is so far unprovable.
I have never seen any evidence for a god, therefore I have no knowledge of a god, and therefore have no belief in a god.
That makes me an agnostic atheist. (I just refer to myself as an atheist)
People miss use the term agnostic, and assume it means something between theism & atheism, but you either believe or you don't.
Now as far as the term "spiritual" as opposed to religious goes, I'm still confused.
I wish people would either be able to explain it or stop using the term!
I understand your frustration but the reason I left religion is that they insist on nailing everything down with scripture or terminology or symbols, etc. It doesn't leave much room for mystery or creativity or for individual transformative experience. I just don't find much "spirituality" in a dictionary although some of the words are interesting.
I think I kind of understand your position, although I don't agree with it completely.
I don't see mystery as something advantageous, as you seem to. I want answers to mysteries. Although I will admit to enjoying trying to solve some mysteries (epistemology fascinates me). But when it comes to what informs my beliefs (or lack of), I look for verifiable truth.
And creativity is great, but to me has no place in matters that inform life decisions.
You mentioned Spinoza in another post, which didn't surprise me given some of the views you've expressed.
I think (this is just my opinion) that had Spinoza lived today, he'd be a total atheist.
I still don't understand what you mean by "spiritual", but I've thoroughly enjoyed & appreciate your input.
And thanks for the civility, it seems to be in short supply lately!
This is what I think the difference is, in the short version:
Religious means getting your beliefs and faith from outside of yourself (ie. church, bible, etc)
Spiritual means looking deep inside of yourself for the answers that feel right to you. This doesn't mean that you don't study outside sources to learn others opinions, just that the answers you find are yours and no one elses.
Susan,
"Religious means getting your beliefs and faith from outside of yourself"
How can that be? Beliefs and faith are by definition internal things.
Maybe you're confusing "beliefs and faith" with dogma.
How can you look "deep inside of yourself for the answers"?
I look outside of myself for information, then analyze that information to reach conclusions. The information I need isn't just "within me" waiting for a question.
Also, I'm not looking for answers that just "feel right to me", I want verifiable truth.
I don't see how answers can be "yours and no one else's" and be true?
If you include in your definition of "spiritual", belief in anything supernatural (you didn't say whether you do or not), then it sounds to me, like you're defining "spiritual" as simply a more "individualized religion".
Thank you for your response!
... but I'm still confused.
"Pedophile priests in the Catholic Church are prosecuted" since when? Last I checked, the victims' families are bribed or pressured into silence and the pedophile in question moved to another church so he can ruin more young lives. The Catholic Church (and to be fair, pretty much every other organized religion aka oversized cult) has always cared more about itself than those it claims to minister to.
I wish once and for all someone would explain what all these people who say "I'm not religious, I'm spiritual", (and then seem to imply that they're somehow more enlightened than the religious) mean by "spiritual".
Don't you have to believe in "spirits" to be "spiritual"?
Don't the religious and the spiritual both believe in the supernatural?
Is the only difference ... subscribing to a church?
Is it like the difference between a liberal and a democrat?
I'm serious ......please define and explain.
I can only give you my own answer but you need to realize I had myself excommunicated from one major religion and sent my baptismal certificate back to another over a period of 65 years. I cannot go near a church today without having a panic attack. I find a spiritual dimension in nature, in love, in simple things like birdsong, in poetry, in art, in music and even in science. To me it is all sacred or contains a sacred energy. I have had a number of transformative experiences in nature that to me seem spiritual. But what I got from religion as an institution, as a hierarchical structure, was none of these things. I got from religion at least the ones I dealt with things like rigidity, judgement based on what I thought not what I did, conformity, boredom, worship of a book and money and an inability to accept new knowledge or insight from any new source. Today the archbishop of Chicago said that Catholics are ashamed (or words like that) because Obama is invited to give a speech at Notre Dame and that he and 13 other bishops will boycott. This is religion. My wife a Catholic who would never do something like this is spiritual. That is the difference. I can recommend a new book by Chet Raymo When God is Gone Everything is Holy.
It sounds like you're just describing an appreciation for aesthetics. I too, have an appreciation for aesthetics (and am sometimes awed by nature), but I don't have any supernatural beliefs.
Then you take it a step further and call it sacred and spiritual. Why?
What do you mean by a "spiritual dimension" and "sacred energy"?
It's like the people who say "god is love" ... sounds nice, I guess, but makes no sense.
I don't get it, either. It does still seem to mean that you'll survive your death.
I don't know. I heard someone on the radio recently refer to them self as a spiritual atheist, and my head nearly exploded.
The term "spiritual" had always confused me, but that's when it began to really drive me nuts!
I don't think I'll ever get a good answer though.
i just wish people wouldn't use words that they can't define.
By saying religious, you're implying that you also follow along with the dogma associated with structured religion. By saying spiritual, well, most of the time that just seems to be a prettier way of saying agnostic, but kinda believes maybe. Or you're of a vague religious belief that doesn't have as much to do with the major religions.
Agnosticism is a lack of knowledge, most people I've heard refer to themselves as spiritual don't seem to base anything on knowledge (or lack of). They seem to be "feelings" based.
I guess you could be right though, and some are agnostic theists. And maybe some of those who call themselves "spiritual" are agnostic atheists (like me), but can't let go of the woo woo.
I'm very encouraged by the commentaries going on FINALLY -- Deepak Chopra, Richard Dawkins, Michael Shermer, Eckhart Tolle. They ALL make contributions.
I have long believed that the problem is not the conflict between believers and non-believers, it's the conflict caused by the institutionalization, the dogmatization, the proselytizing of spiritual beliefs. Get rid of organized religion and let individuals take their individual spiritual journeys and we'll have a better world. I loved Deepaks final statement: " It may be past time to radically reform organized religion or even dispense with it altogether (as I tend to believe). " ME TOO!
It is more due to the, " Holier than thou" attitdue.
I had this weird feeling today. It felt like Satan had infiltrated my soul, but as it turns out, it was really just those damned pistachios.
See, you are nuts after all.
We are what we eat!
Deepak,
While you rightly point out that our subjective experiences will always differ this does not provide a basis for believing in alien overlords. You may like Picasso's art and experience it differently than I but the fact remains that there is a piece of art in front of us to perceive.
The same is true for the beauty around us in the world, we may all have different subjective experiences occurs because there is something there to experience.
Unlike this notion of 'God' which has no tangible manifestation for us to observe together and debate our subjective experiences.
Beauty, love, honor, kindness, evil, hate and even the idea that there is some higher truth that we can aspire to are all notions created by humanity, borne from our brains. We need no God to make something sacred. We need to stop attributing our aspirations to some external fantasy and give ourselves credit (and blame when we fall short) for having ideals to live up to.
Thank you for the article, Mr Chopra. I always enjoy your articles. They have a great blend of faith, humanity, and reason.
"Many of the greatest figures in history have had profound spiritual experiences without being delusional. Their experiences have done more to shape human destiny than any other force besides war. To call Socrates, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and Buddha hopelessly deluded because an academic pedant like Richard Dawkins feels superior to them is absurd."
This is a logical fallacy. Because someone that history reveres as intelligent or important believed in God does not mean God existed/exists, nor does their intelligence or importance preclude them from being delusional. God is not the same thing as morality or beauty simply because they are not universally objective.
So yes, if someone believes in an omnipotent being that created the world based on nothing more than the feeling that that's how it should be, they are delusional. If you substituted any other belief into that sentence, you would agree. If I said "I have an inexplicable feeling I am the smartest, greatest person on the planet, and therefore I believe it to be true," you would call me a delusional narcissist. Any belief without any logical or empirical basis is whatsoever is delusional.
Richard Dawkins may be a narcissistic, pedantic, arrogant jerk, but that doesn't make him wrong.
I think the mistake religion particularly the fundamentalist religions and that the secular atheists like Dawkins both make is that they desacralize nature. To see nature as having a sacred impulse or principle within it does not mean that there is a deity. This sacred substrate or impulse has been described and named in various ways as Holy the Firm (Dillard), the Collective Unconscious (Jung), the Great Spirit (Native American), string theory (modern physics), the Holy Spirit (the Bible), the Great Integrity (Lao Tzu), the Cosmic Religious Feeling (Einstein), Natura Naturans (Spinoza), the Eternal Beauty (Hawthorne), the Forms (Plato), the Unmoved Mover (Aristotle), the Guest (Kabir), the Prayer of Union (Saint Teresa of Avila), the Divine Imagination (William Blake), Morphic Fields (Rupert Sheldrake), the Anima Mundi or World Soul (Paracelsus), the Mysterium Tremendum (Rudolf Otto), the Designing Fire ((Zeno of Citium), the World Spirit (GWF Hegel), Infinite Substance (Anaximander), the One (Plotinus), Spiritus Insertus Atomis (Democritus), the Self-Existent (the Therapeutae), the Twilight Zone (Rod Serling), FacultasFormatrix (Kepler).
Yes, that's the argumentum ad verecundiam, the argument from authority. What does it say when you have to resort to logical fallacies to "prove" the existence of your God?
The existence of "God" cannot be proved or disproved by logic although science seems to be getting at the subjective experience of "God" by the god gene VMAT2 for instance. . The experience of "god" comes down to individual subjective experience that usually cannot be verified. But the anecdotal evidence for some sort of sacred substrate within nature is pretty strong among some great minds. Many artists (example Miro) report in their journals the influence of a creative force coming from outside of themselves. Some atheist authors have done a pretty good job of dismantling the traditional concept of god (deity) using scientific logic, but they have not really dealt with the sort of pantheistic impulse that so many artists and scientists have reported in their experience.
No, the fact that God is subjective doesn't make the deity unreal. The fact that the deity is unreal makes it unreal.
I think the poet Rilke was on to something when he said something like "beauty is but the beginning of terror." Nature is both beauty and terror--sometimes at the same time. God (even though I don't believe in a traditional concept of God) seems to be the same way, but the Old Testament God was way to human to suit me.
I recommend Eckhart Tolle's books.
Deepak,
I just wanted to say that I think the problem with religion is not that it exists or that people search for meaning in the spiritual. The problem, as I see it, is that some religions try to make all people conform to one idea of the divine. The search for meaning and connection with God is a truly intimate experience and people should be allowed to explore it or not in their own way. That is what I took from your post and I appreciate you putting it out there.
The post was great, Thanks
I totally agree also. Subjectivity is such a threat to organized religion and one's personal experiences are always subjugated to the almighty (pardon the pun) institution.
Thank you for your wisdom, as usual, Deepak!
Nicely said. I agree completely.
Those who would use religion to force others to conform to their way of thinking aren't interested in religion or God or faith. They're interested in power.
I think it's unfortunate that many people who condemn religion do not make this distinction. There is nothing wrong with a person having religious beliefs. It does not make them deluded any more than believing in love, justice, or truth makes them deluded. All are subjective and intangible, but they are important underpinnings to human civilization.
I think you are on to something historymatters. The problem is not necessarily religious people because many of them are both moral and spiritual. In my experience with religions (over 65 years) the problem is with the usually male hierarchy that is interested in power, money and control.
Religion should exist to add value to one' s life and to help us clearly see the value in all other lives, If it fails this simple benchmark, or is predicated upon exclusion, it is probably not a religion based on spitituality, but cult like ideology, and has limited value. I thnk many who would claim that believing in God is simply a form of collective delusion have probaly been primarily exposed to the latter, not a form of religion based upon true spirituality.
"Religion should exist to add value to one' s life and to help us clearly see the value in all other lives"
Exactly how does religion or spirituality do this?
And ... please explain to me what exactly "spirituality" is.
And ... can you name one good thing that has ever been done by a religious/spiritual person that could not have been done without their religious/spiritual beliefs?
Ha, Ha, Ha... it's a trick question......
actually there is no difference, because god can exist in you only when, you are gone...
when the house is empty, the master returns and not before...because only nothing can contain everything...
If "you" as in "ego" then you are making good sense.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
