FIRST
Faith and sensing guidance from God can potentially endanger scientific progress:
Confirmation bias: Reliance on divine guidance may lead people to accept explanations without empirical evidence.
Discouraging skepticism: Faith-based certainty can reduce questioning and critical thinking essential for science.
Rejecting empirical data: Individuals may dismiss scientific findings that conflict with perceived divine messages.
Slowing innovation: Decisions guided by faith rather than experimentation can delay technological or medical advances.
Promoting dogma over inquiry: Belief in absolute divine instruction can prioritize ideology over open-ended investigation.
Influencing policy: Faith-driven decisions may restrict funding or support for controversial but scientifically valid research.
Existential discomfort: Realizing natural processes govern life can feel morally or emotionally unsettling.
Loss of meaning: Some may fear life is purposeless without divine intervention.
Cognitive dissonance: Conflicting beliefs (faith vs. natural causation) create mental tension.
Resistance to science: To protect worldview, people may reject scientific explanations or evidence.
Formation of protective ideologies: Over time, they may develop beliefs or practices that shield them from these unsettling ideas.
THE ARGUMENT
Whether religious faith or belief in God constitutes a psychological impairment or disorder is an important question. But even if it does not, in some cases, it can still impair one’s ability to do science.
There is nothing sacred about the way nature delivers the body. A trans person might see their experience and surgery as sacred, but this risks empowering those who would seek to restrict their rights. Opponents may reason, “If everything is sacred, nothing is sacred! So some trans affirmation—if not most or all—goes too far.” That worry will always linger in the back of the trans person’s mind.
This issue is not just about trans rights but about bodily autonomy in all its forms, including abortion rights. Scientists influenced by religion may let fear of the “sacred” hinder their work. It can even damage their integrity. Historically, religion has often expected scientists to avoid studies it disapproves of.
Science has discovered that the ingredients for life exist elsewhere—in other planets and their moons. No one seriously supposes that these ingredients require divine intervention to organize or initiate life. The Bible speaks of the breath of God animating Adam’s fully formed body. But just as an apple falls from a tree without an agent making it happen, the building blocks of life can come together naturally and result in living creatures. The idea that science and God are complementary is a fiction.
Merely going through the motions of science is not true science. A religious scientist can make discoveries, but this demonstrates that science, in a sense, operates independently.
We all have misperceptions and impairments in how we think and see the world. Religion could be another example of this.
Whether a person needs a gentle correction or months of psychological help, they must be assisted. A gentle correction can be as therapeutic as formal therapy.
Some argue that if religious people are mentally disturbed, then scientists must be as well. Such arguments assume that bias and a strong need to believe are psychological difficulties.
The very fact that we question whether faith in God, prayer, or religious practice is healthy suggests there may be cause for concern. We recognize mental disturbance when we encounter it.
Delusions can range from mild to extreme.
We worry they may cause a person to harm themselves accidentally or become too vulnerable because they are not aligned with reality. Lies, errors, and falsehoods automatically lead to uncertainty one cannot afford. An error in math means the entire calculation is flawed. A person needs help focusing on evidence to overcome their delusions.
Anthropologist Jonathan Marks, in Why I Am Not a Scientist: Anthropology and Modern Knowledge (University of California, 2009), observes that scientists often see what they want to see. Their methods and peer reviews are less objective and fair than people assume. Even the amount of funding available can influence a scientist’s conclusions.
The proper view is that, though science can be biased and flawed, it remains the best method we have for seeking truth. At least in principle, science values open-mindedness and examines what is actually there. If science is flawed, religion is worse. Choose the lesser curse.
Christians use such statements to argue that science does not offer certainty, but in doing so, they only weaken their own religion.
Atheists say Christians are too sure of themselves when no one should be that sure. Christians reply that this argument also undermines atheists when they are very sure of themselves. Suppose atheists are right. We can then say yes, it does undermine such atheists. But it undermines Christians more. Choose the lesser evil! Atheists resist the temptation to believe in a God that adores them; Christians do not. So Christians should not be so confident that their beliefs are true when they are so biased. Plus, if atheists are right, they may know it. In that case, they are not undermining themselves by saying Christians can’t be that sure their faith is true.
Also, Christians assert that if an atheist says nobody can be sure, how can the atheist be sure that nobody can be sure? Perhaps there are people who are certain their beliefs are correct.
Christians say there is evidence for the resurrection, and that if we only believe things because we want to and not because of the evidence, that does not mean there is no evidence for the resurrection (page 19, The Infidel Delusion). True. But it also means we never believe because of evidence, even if we use it. Christians then would be lying bigots for claiming they have an honest and justified belief in the resurrection. Even if evidence exists for the resurrection, it might as well be none for all the good it does Christians.
Scientists believe we are hardwired to filter out counterevidence. Suppose all our beliefs are more biased than we think. It follows that we should only believe what we need to get by in this world—for example, that doctors may cure you, that food keeps you alive, that what we are told about math and geography is correct, etc. Starting to get religious is going too far. The further you go, the more likely you are to become bigoted.
If nature is thrown together and is so wonderful by luck, then this hardwiring is to be expected. My bias will be corrected by someone else because we are not all biased in the same way. That is fine. But to argue that a reliable God would do this to you, yet also grounds science because he made all things, will backfire. It is science to examine the apple that fell and why it fell when you know no one is there to tamper or lie. If you think a creator could be playing tricks, your motivation to study and research will be ruined.
Christians say that many scientists believe people naturally only believe what they want to believe. Christians view themselves as an exception. They contradict their claim that human nature is biased and unfair with belief, and then contradict this by denying they are among such people. This is a clear example of delusion—a strong one, though it may not lead to dramatic or worrying behaviors.
We notice the following:
Being informed about what religion teaches and following it indicates that delusion is at work.
And what if the religion disregards truth and evidence? It wants to be deluded, then. It wants many to be deluded.
If Christianity is not fully mentally well, this only applies to those giving a higher level of commitment than is appropriate for a man-made creation. We discern that a diagnosis of delusion may be applicable in many individual cases.
Conclusion:
While it remains debated whether religious faith or belief in God
qualifies as a psychological impairment, it is evident that deeply
held religious convictions can hinder objective scientific inquiry.
Bias and delusion affect all humans, but faith often resists
correction by evidence, potentially limiting critical thinking and
openness. Science, despite its flaws, encourages questioning and
evidence-based understanding—qualities essential for progress. Thus,
taking religion too seriously may impair one’s capacity to engage
fully and honestly with reality. Recognizing this challenge is the
first step toward balancing belief with reason.
PATHEOS - WHY RELIGIOUS BELIEF IS NOT A DELUSION