-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Were the "Heaven's Gate" Folks Delusional?
- Thread starter doppelganger
- Start date
Fluffy
A fool
This is the problem that faith as an epistemological justifier (not practical motivator) faces. If faith is an epistemological justifer then anything it targets is justified. Therefore, we must accept that any act caused by faith is justified. On the other hand, if we accept that some actions that are caused by faith are not justified then how can we say that faith is a justifier?
The scientific method is another epistemological justifier. If by analogy we consider a belief that is caused by the scientific method then it appears as though that belief will always be justified (not true. Justified. This is a crucial distinction). Additionally, it appears that if we ever encounter a belief that was caused by the scientific method but was not justifiable then this could only mean that the scientific method in general is not a justifier.
Therefore, I can see no other conclusion but to say that faith cannot be a justifier. Consequently, people who have faith are, not deluded, but unjustified in holding any belief that rests upon faith.
The scientific method is another epistemological justifier. If by analogy we consider a belief that is caused by the scientific method then it appears as though that belief will always be justified (not true. Justified. This is a crucial distinction). Additionally, it appears that if we ever encounter a belief that was caused by the scientific method but was not justifiable then this could only mean that the scientific method in general is not a justifier.
Therefore, I can see no other conclusion but to say that faith cannot be a justifier. Consequently, people who have faith are, not deluded, but unjustified in holding any belief that rests upon faith.
bump.
Smoke
Done here.
No, Kool-Aid was at Jonestown. The Heaven's Gate folks killed themselves with vodka and phenobarbital. You can call me a vodka drinker anytime you want, though; no problem.
I don't think there are going to be a lot of serious responses on this thread, because the uncomfortable truth is, there's no basis for saying the Heaven's Gate followers were delusional that wouldn't equally apply to any religion whose followers believe in something for which there's no evidence and act accordingly: Christian martyrs, for instance.
I doubt that there are many believers who are going to care to face up to that, especially believers who take offense at having their own religion called a delusion.
Yes, I think so.doppelgänger;1062005 said:
Lack of internal consistency in the claim, for one thing. Like Kirk said in Star Trek V, "why does God need a starship?" (or space craft)... I'd add to that other questions:doppelgänger;1062005 said:
- why does Jesus need you to die to 'beam you up' to his space craft?
- why is Jesus' space craft hiding behind a comet?
I think, though, that a lot of the test of whether a belief constitutes a delusion lies in reasonableness of that belief... and reasonableness can be a tricky thing to pin down. In the end, my judgement of why these particular people were delusional comes down to my opinion that the entire idea they were convinced of makes no sense at all. I can cite other things like cult/dangerous group warning signs that I assume would have been present, but really, it just comes down to the fact that the sum total of my knowledge and experience tells me that these sort of beliefs are obviously completely nutty.
Of course, the fact that a significant number of people found these ideas so convincing that they'd willingly wager their own lives on the truth of them tells me that my definition of "obvious" isn't universal.
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
I don't know. God works in mysterious ways. It's not our place to question the holy plan of God because we can never fathom the top down view from which "He" sees the universe. The wisdom of God is folly to men. The list goes on and on . . .
Why did God have to take the shape of a man, be born of a virgin and be tortured to death on a cross? Why does God only speak through certain approved books?
...or "a good tree cannot produce bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot produce good fruit."doppelgänger;1189877 said:
If push comes to shove, I've got problems with the internal logical consistency of that belief, too, though I recognize that it usually (usually) doesn't cause people to kill themselves.doppelgänger;1189877 said:
I'm not sure that even the religions that believe in the books in question generally believe that God can't communicate by other means.doppelgänger;1189877 said:
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
We have several members of this forum who maintain that "He" cannot.
Smoke
Done here.
That's so wrong.
