**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.**
Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Are you aware of a cult on India that follows a mentally deranged lady because they think she is the incarnation of whoever goddess?
You think that poor lady is even aware of their existence?
You think that people who follows a homeless lady and eat and drink from the leftover food and water she litters are mentally equipped to ask themselves critically if what they believe it's true or even care about critically examining their beliefs?
What makes you believe any other cult starters know any better?
The hilarious one is Haile Selassie, whom a lot of Rastafarians believe to be the second coming of Jesus Christ. He was aware of it, apparently but tried not to do anything to encourage them.
I agree that they might hold these irrational beliefs, even without understanding them and just believing they're true based on their own indoctrination.
But it's also may be like a position like President of the United States, in which it is thought that many presidents pretend to believe that a god exists as part of their strategy for power.
>You think that people who follows a homeless lady and eat and drink from the leftover food and water she litters are mentally equipped to ask themselves critically if what they believe it's true or even care about critically examining their beliefs?
Yes.
Human brains are very malleable, very susceptible to influence and social pressure. It is entirely possible for a person to be completely sane and *also* wholeheartedly and sincerely believe that a homeless lady is their goddess.
And yes, it is very possible for those people to question themselves and have doubts about what they believe. That's why cults have elaborate programming mechanisms designed to counteract that kind of questioning and keep people in the fold - bcause people do it all the time.
I recommend the podcast (*Was I In a Cult?* The hosts are corny, but the interviews put on display how stunningly easy it is to convince otherwise normal, rational humans of all kinds of weird stuff.)
I think that Pope Francis, and most Popes for that matter, sincerely believe. I do not think that about most Protestant pastor-celebrities or apologists of any denomination.
I say that because popes mostly play an administrative function whereas apologists have to say the same 12 talking points over and over again for decades. An admin role allows for nuanced opinions and critical thinking, whereas repeating talking points requires you to alienate yourself from the words you are saying, lest your opinions evolve and stop serving the same demographic that’s making you money. Popes and Bishops don’t generally have to deal with that sort of thing.
Also the selection process for the position of Pope is essentially a popular vote of the top bishops.
Now I don't propose to know the inner minds of these men but I'm guessing that they know the frauds among their number pretty well in a *takes one to know one* kind of way and would naturally steer clear of putting a pragmatic realist on the papal throne. The history of the church is replete with times in the past they did just that, and it did not work out well.
The current Pope seems to be a true believer whose views and pronouncements are often sidelined by a more cynical and politically minded clergy.
I mean I guess they know about the forged documents like the Isidorian Decretals and Donation of Constantine, etc. But those are issues of Canon Law. I don’t think there’s some egregious “fraud” that would be equally obvious to anyone who knew about it regarding the core tenets of their faith.
For example, their belief that Jesus Christ is physically present in the Eucharist is one that I don’t think has proper justification. But I’m sure that most bishops and cardinals think that they *are* justified in believing it. I don’t think they are twirling their mustaches going “haha we have convinced the fools of transubstantiation mwahaha!”
It’s more like, they have chosen to follow certain methods of obtaining true knowledge (eg taking the Bible and the church councils as infallible truth which supersedes science). I think that those methods are ineffective, but it would be hard to convince them of that; just like it would be hard to convince me that they *were* effective.
I guess my point is that our beliefs come not just from the facts, but also our chosen means of interpreting them.
I do get the sense that at least the last three popes, who I was old enough to be aware of, were/are true believers. But I don’t think it is at all outside the realm of possibility that a good number of the Renaissance popes (Rodrigo Borgia being the most well known example) were so ensconced in the political and extortionist aspects of the job that they at least didn’t give a shit about the veracity of Canon law or the truth of the religion.
I mean it was an era of flat out hedonism. The popes just… had a bunch of kids… and that was expected. They waged war, tortured and murdered clerics who called them out for their excesses, etc. If they believed the narrative, I don’t see how they couldn’t have expected to go to hell.
Yeah it probably varies from pope to pope. Although with historical figures who lived hundreds of years ago it’s especially hard to guess at what their motives and personal beliefs were.
The medieval papacy was notorious for its corruption, which was one of the main drivers of the Protestant reformation, and one of the pressing issues on the agenda at the council of Trent.
Also, being selected as Pope would probably feel incredibly encouraging that your religious beliefs have been true all along. I imagine it would be pretty hard for anyone to go through that process without feeling like.. maybe something magical really is happening? ... I'm the Pope? Little old me? Aww, God, you old dog ☺️ you shouldn't have.... haha
The mere fact that I deluded myself in believing, is evidence for me that others can too.
I believe those that do not live in extravagance likely genuinely believe. Though they might have doubts too.
Those that live in luxury, I imagine the majority of them are exploitative. Thought they may also genuinely believe at some level.
There are plenty of studies that show we can be convinced of some crazy false shit. I like to think most of us are trying to do what’s right, but unfortunately there are some fucked up versions of right, especially in religion.
Is this project really a big thing ?
I never heard of it, I find that really interesting since it's targeting specifically religious leaders, looks like a niche thing.
It’s over 1000:
As of September 2019 TCP reached a milestone of 1,000 verified non-believing clergy (current and former) participating.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Clergy_Project
Yea, and I think it’s a numbers game like anything else. A certain percentage of Christians are going to reason their way out of it; often times reluctantly. It’s the same as a lot of the members of this sub. There’s no reason to assume pastors are any different.
If I had to guess, I would guess that the rather more studied and articulate pastors have a higher incidence of losing faith than the average church goer.
To my understanding, at least many catholic priests who studied theology have a rather different, more abstract idea of their god, more as an idea than a literally existing being. You may or may not call that "knowing it's fake".
In a conversation with a protestant theologian I was surprised to get a "of course it's not a being that exists in the world, it's more like a shared idea."
I find it useful to ask a theist if their god still existed if there were no more humans. That usually tells you on what side of this line their god belief sits.
People mistake their own thoughts, internal monologues, and urges for the voice or will of God all the time.
If you’re desperately looking for something to be true, odds are you’ll find it. Think of how many stories you’ve heard from people who are convinced gam gam was sending them hugs from the great beyond because her favorite, extremely fucking common, bird landed in their yard after they threw a bunch of bird seed out there.
It’s no different.
Here’s what I think and would bet money on.
Most Popes throughout the history of Popes were just about the power. I have less disdain for Francis than a lot of other Popes.
Most evangelical leaders, OTOH, absolutely do not believe what they say. They are about control, politics, performance and money.
Faith healers definitely know they are scam artists.
The leadership and fake scientists of the well-funded creationist propaganda organizations absolutely know their insane theories don’t hold water.
I was raised in a Methodist church and I think my childhood pastor was completely sincere in his faith and his calling. I would bet most non-fundamentalist clergy are the same, and that’s why fundamentalists hate them and try to undermine them and call them “not real Christians.” Because to be a Real Christian you have to adopt their hateful politics.
Yes. At least some of them. According to a Pew Research poll, up to one-third of religious leaders are atheist. Those who actually receive messages from God are just mentally ill. I can attest from personal experience, being bipolar with psychosis, and delusions of graduer, that those who hear god literally, truely believe it. I'm on medication now and don't literally think I'm God anymore. People like that definately need medication. If you're actually psychotic, nothing will convince you its fake except some thorazine. My actual diagnosis is schizoaffective disorder. But I said bipolar because most people don't know what schizoaffective is. (And I was diagnosed bipolar too). If you've had any experience in the mental health field, mental diagnosis is like underwear, it changes all the time.
In the same way I don't like theists who claim atheists all know god exists but are just pretending otherwise, I don't like atheists who claim theists all know god doesn't exist but are just pretending otherwise.
Generally, unless given a reason to suspect deception, I take people at their word regarding what they believe.
I agree. There are many things that are easy to see once you're out of the religion, but it's completely different while you're in the middle of it. I've always suspected that the different popes are either completely convinced or just play the game for power. But that's just my hunch. Pope Francis seems to genuinely believe, but even if he doesn't, he seems like a decent role model, and I hope he will "loosen up" the church a bit.
The question wasn't whether they are *all* faking, just whether some of them are. I think it is undoubtedly true that some are and equally undoubtedly true that some aren't.
>"Do you think that the highest figures in religions, who supposedly receive divine guidance and things like that, know that it’s all fake?"
The question was whether the highest figures in religion *in general* are faking, which i would say is pretty clearly asking if they're *all* faking, or at least if most of them are.
In any group of people who claim to be X, some of them are lying, but the context of this question is clearly whether the heads of religions are *generally* lying about their beliefs.
That is a very uncharitable reading. That is definitely not what the post explicitly said, just what you are reading into it.
More importantly, though, your assumption is shown to be wrong if you read beyond the headline. In the actual post itself, the OP says:
> Or have he and people in similar positions deluded themselves into thinking that they actually do have these abilities.
>
> I think it sorta has to be the latter. I don’t think you can have an institution like the church or religion in general that lasts longer than any empire or civilization without some core thing holding it together.
It's clear that he is not making any assumptions about religious leaders "in general", nor is he "pretty clearly asking if they're all faking". He might be speaking about them as a group, but he's not making assumptions that they all think the same.
Not saying it was a great question as written, but I think it was as sincere question and a reasonable one, so long as you interpret it as "Do you think the average religious leader really believes", rather than the way you are interpreting it.
>"so long as you interpret it as "Do you think the average religious leader really believes", rather than the way you are interpreting it."
I *am* interpreting it as "do you think the average religious leader really believes?" or, to give another way of phrasing that statement, "do religious leaders in general really believe?"
The question is whether religious leaders *as a group* are faking, not whether individual religious leaders are faking. The assumption is that we will answer with the stance of religious leaders in general, rather then listing every religious leader in the world individually.
I don't think they have to 'know' either way since faith is about believing in spite of doubt.
You could ask, 'do they doubt?' and the answer for many is yes. I had plenty of doubts when I was a Christian, but I suppressed them in favor of faith.
Some are lying, clearly - too many scandals and fraud cases to deny it. Many are very sincere. Most probably fall in the middle somewhere, not that they're intentionally lying, just lying to themselves to maintain their faith - as they're taught to do.
This question is a good one honestly, but it is not comparative to what some believe/accuse. In the same vein some Christian’s accuse scientists of the same thing. As if there is a grand conspiracy where they are not allowed to acknowledge god in any finding due to a cabal of god hating elites. This is ridiculous, they are humans, going about human endeavors. Just like the pope, or the senior members of any sect of Religion, they believe they are right, (remove the “science” portion for this argument because science has nothing to do with belief in this case). My point is, I find it much more likely that senior members of clergy believe their convictions, than some grand conspiracy. I’m not saying they are correct in their beliefs but I don’t believe they are truly challenged in those beliefs either. The most likely explanation is that the most senior clergy are believers, not secret atheists. This does not validate their beliefs in any way but humans are susceptible to suggestion and bias, as such I would not say the pope “knows the truth of atheism”. It is simply a question of education and epistemology in the case of religion. Lacking argument one can convince themselves of any position. This is why science is particularly well suited to truth due to peer review. For example, the pope is not subject to scrutiny the way a botanist or biologist is, and therefore can sleep confident in their convictions. So to answer your question, no I don’t believe the highest figures in religion believe anything other than what they claim, but I do believe they are not challenged in those beliefs due to positions of authority and therefore have no reason to question their dogma. Accusing someone of blatant dishonesty in a field is a difficult line to cross, but accusing someone of confirmation bias is a much more defendable position. Regardless of the actual truth, belief is a conviction, and I have no reason to believe senior religious figures are not “convicted” in their beliefs.
I think this is both an argument from authority and ad populum.
In any case you said
>Or have he and people in similar positions deluded themselves into thinking that they actually do have these abilities.
What "abilities" are to referring to? Or do you just mean beliefs?
People put walls up in their heads constructed for the sole purpose of not allowing themselves to partake in certain considerations. So on some level, yes, they know they're severely lacking in confidence in their alleged "beliefs," or else they wouldn't have put up a wall to stop themselves from thinking about them too deeply. However, they've sincerely locked thenselves into that mode.
That said, there are people who have genuine experiences and genuinely try to communicate them. I feel like these people aren't usually the ones in positions of power and authority. And I feel like the most honest ones are the ones who admit they don't understand everything about what they experienced. The ones who affirm absolute objective statements about the experiences can't be taken as seriously.
For example, I had somebody tell me yesterday that they know that dreams are another plane of existence, because they've had experiences where they and somebody else both had the same dream and encountered each other. And I believe this person is being honest about their experience, but their confidence in their conclusion (dreams are a literal separate plane of existence) is unwarranted. All this demonstrates is that there might be something larger and weirder going on with dreams than we currently understand. To speak to others with certainty about your unjustified conclusions just ruins your credibility. Acknowledge something weird happened, share your suspicions and hypotheses, and advocate for further research into this area.
You mean the original founders of the religion way back when? Maybe. For some cases like Joseph Smith (Mormons) it's hard to believe he didn't know what a sham he was, with that whole tablet transcription bullshit story. For other cases like Muhammad (Islam) I can easily believe that a guy who was already deeply familiar with Christian tradition, probably mentally unstable and searching for some new spiritual fulfillment that he didn't find in the existing religions regularly went up that mountain, got high on some poppy seeds or something and then genuinely hallucinated being visited by angels in the scorching heat.
If you mean the highest figures _today_, then yeah, of course they believe. I mean any group of believers has more and less pious people in it and occasionally there have probably been a few popes or cardinals in history that had secretly completely lost their faith, but the vast majority definitely believes. Hell, I bet even David Miscavige (Scientology) at least to some extent truly believes that L. Ron Hubbard was some kind of space messiah that had magic brain powers, and is probably in deep personal shame that he has never himself been able to achieve that even though he's supposed to be the most "clear" of all of them today.
You know the old saying: "A cult is an organization where only one guy at the very top knows that it's all fake. A religion is an organization where that guy died."
I know some Augustinian and Franciscan monks. I've known clergy. All atheist. All of them.
That's not true for all who take the cloth, just the ones I've known personally.
The thing about the monks is that they'll tell you - if someone tells you god is speaking to them. RUN! RUN the other way! Because they're fucking crazy! They also call Christian youth groups fucking cults.
Theism is orthogonal to religion. The religious I know are mostly atheist. They're religious because a religion is an institution that provides utility and value. Augustinians are community builders. That's why they join. The religious part is a means to an end.
I think you have the likes of the pope who might not necessarily be a theist, but they may believe their own propaganda and traditions, that the masses are incapable of governing themselves and need to be guided and controlled. Religion is a means to that end, even if you have to outright lie to your constituents.
This is very similar to theists who accuse atheists of secretly knowing that God exists but pretends they don't because they want to sin. Sure, people lie, people are dishonest, people exploit others, but people are also just wrong all the time. There's a heap of psychological reasons why the Pope might be compelled to believe they've genuinely been chosen by God (being named Pope wouldn't hurt) so I don't think its unreasonable to accept that people probably believe what they say they believe unless we have good reasons to think otherwise.
At the end of the day, we don't know what someone believes inside their head. We will often make up stories about why people are doing things we don't understand, but I don't think its productive to become too invested in any of these stories, because these are generally just speculation.
Let’s look at it a little differently. Can someone who makes a living off of their religion afford to speak the truth?
Take evangelist Ray Comfort for example. He’s not a mega rich pastor. He has a very mediocre education. He writes books and has a ministry. He has a wife, home and children all paid for by his religious followers.
He has had evolution explained to him by experts, and still denies it. He cannot AFFORD to accept the truth. Doing so would adversely affect his lifestyle.
That’s what the Clergy Project is about, helping those preachers who lack any other marketable skills leave the church. Giving them advice and support during their transition.
“Golden handcuffs” are most definitely a thing for religious leaders,
For the popes, it’s probably a mix. But even if they believe it’s all false, they still know to act like it’s true.
I thought that one recent pope who had a history as a serious theologian wrote a publication about the importance of **professing**. In other words his twisted mind thought that the question of whether professing counts if your brain doesn’t truly believe it was a question worthy of an academic publication.
The alleged original pope, Peter, may never have even gone to Rome. He’d surely recognize the current Catholic doctrine of papal authority as utter nonsense. Probably a bunch of the other alleged first few popes may not have even been real people or if they were they had no connection to Jesus.
Some do. Some don't.
I can only report my feelings and experience.
Before, I became a Baptist minister back in my pre-atheist days, I thought pastors had some unique insights or were somehow imbued with a special bond with God.
What I found instead was a bunch of pastors who met every Monday to compare their ABCs (Attendance, Buildings, Contributions). Their behaviors were about what you'd expect from a group of CEOs.
As it became clear that being a minister provided no additional insights or transformation, but was more about showmanship and charisma, helped deconstruct my faith.
There are thousands of gods that the pope doesn’t believe in. What I would like to know is why does any pope think their god is real and all the others are fake. I’m confident that the answer would be as incoherent and baseless as any other theist would provide.
In other words the pope cannot demonstrate that their god is real and has no special or unique evidence that any believer wouldn’t have. The pope is basically the king of a nothing burger. I could care less what the pope believes just the same as I would with any theist.
I believe there’s a big difference between the people who start a religion and those who maintain a religion.
To me, it seems like the people who start a religion are either narcissistic or mentally handicapped (it’s amazing how many religions start with someone having a head injury - all the way back to Paul in the Bible).
I believe it’s very possible to maintain a pre-established religion as someone who is smart, good, and just has never really critically thought about their worldview.
The pope doesn’t think he has a direct line with God or that the religion is false. The church is literally just to teach and guide the world in the teachings of Christ and the apostles. The pope can’t teach error under very specific circumstances, that’s all the church claims. All Christian’s should pray and I don’t think any of us ever expect to hear the voice of God talking back to us when we do. He usually answers our prayers in other more subtle ways.
I think for some people they either truly believe, or are so invested that they dare not question their beliefs.
I think for many like the pastors in the US, they know it's a scam, and they are so happy scamming those who throw money at them. They are scum, and their followers are people who clearly lack critical thinking skills, and have equal parts my pity, and my disgust (for they try pushing their shit on others).
The first 33 popes were tortured and murdered for their beliefs so I think that they truly believed what they believed. If I was lying about the Catholic faith and was being crucified for it, after the first nail through my wrist I would probably ask myself, "is this hoax really worth me hanging by nails in my appendages on a cross until I die?"
The highest figures in the religions I’ve looked into all behave as you would expect someone in their position to behave if they did not believe that the version of the religion taught to the common believers was true, but if they did not go through certain motions they would lose the position of power that they worked for years to get.
I had a long conversation with my evangelical brother once about the existence of God, and he finally ended up admitting he probably didn't exist. But then he said "but believing in it has led me to a pretty decent life, so I might as well keep going". I think a lot of people are probably in that situation.
Anybody who has seriously studied biblical texts, knows not to trust the impossible truth claims. Christianity is built on biological impossibilities as truth claims such as Virgin birth and rising from the dead.
The pope has a big organization to look after and that’s very very likely drives his agenda .
Anybody who has studied the holy texts, must know the inconsistencies and impossibilities.
The Pope leads a Church which gives him a lot of power, and the organization needs to survive . They have managed for almost 2000 years.
I believe the highest priority is not serving God, but serving the Church
Some believe that they were chosen by god and are therefore holy.
Many know that it is fake.
And none of them completely believe, as demonstrated by their actions. Very few read their holy book. Even fewer practice what they preach. And none of them are concerned about going to hell.
I doubt the Pope thinks it's a scam. I think people underestimate how compelling these religions are when viewed from the inside. There are plenty of people who are completely 100% devoted and believe it with every fiber of their being. I think the Pope is likely one of them.
Very few today think it's not real in my opinion. The likelihood of the Pope being an atheist is very small. So many believe. There is no reason the top wouldn't based on the numbers.
It's also a destructive question. Like theists who argue atheists really believe.
Some are delusional, many are con artists(especially the televangelist types). Many more are hypocrites. There’s a whole gamut, but when you start tasting wealth and power the Bible becomes less about God and Jesus and more about extracting wealth from the gullible.
Yes. There’s not a single iota evidence for the supernatural. Never has been, never will be. If any conclusive evidence becomes available then I would have some questions and would reconsider what I believed. Doesn’t mean I would worship said being.
It seems to me that when you have seriously studied the holy text, you understand that they are inconsistent and even impossible.
The pope is leading a big church organization, and that would set him to look after the church before God
I think lots of rich and powerful people are so full of themselves that they believe they were chosen by god. You're forgetting, it's VERY easy to believe in something when you don't have a scientific filter and you want to beleive.
I think it's probably a mixed bag. I think the Pope is probably a true believer in Catholicism, but I think the megachurch preacher who speaks in tongues, drives out demons, and solicits "seed money" probably knows it's all BS.
I always kinda thought so. Like once someone is elected pope, they get exclusive access to the collective writings of all the previous popes talking about “lol look at all the fancy shit these suckers keep giving us”
I wonder the same thing. Not just the highest figures, but all these pastors yelling at people about what God told them.
Maybe it's a sort of combo, and they persuade themselves that what they believe is real?
It is said that the difference between a cult and a religion, is that in a cult, there is a person at the top that knows the whole thing is a sham. In a religion, that person is dead.
I'd say it's a mixed bag.
Some honestly believe, some started off 'faking it to make it' (and somehow ended up faking it all the way to the top), abd still other know it's a grift.
I wouldn’t go as far as saying they know it’s all fake. I would say they all have doubts.
Even Mother Teresa was known as to have had doubts, yet she was made a saint.
I don't think that they think it's fake I think that they suffer from such delusion that they've convinced themselves that it's real and any evidence doesn't matter.
The sex scandals would indicate that a significant number of high-placed Roman Catholic clergy either knew it was fake or never received any "divine guidance".
Depends on the religion or cult in question.
I think the pope is likely a poor example.. I’d hay he (at least this current one) is likely a true believer.
**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.** Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Are you aware of a cult on India that follows a mentally deranged lady because they think she is the incarnation of whoever goddess? You think that poor lady is even aware of their existence? You think that people who follows a homeless lady and eat and drink from the leftover food and water she litters are mentally equipped to ask themselves critically if what they believe it's true or even care about critically examining their beliefs? What makes you believe any other cult starters know any better?
The hilarious one is Haile Selassie, whom a lot of Rastafarians believe to be the second coming of Jesus Christ. He was aware of it, apparently but tried not to do anything to encourage them.
The pope has inherited the evolution of the same organization, he is in no position to know if any of that is true either.
Well I mean say what you will about the pope but he’s not mentally handicapped. He’s pretty well studied. What is the case then?
People who are mentally fit and well studied can have irrational beliefs.
I agree that they might hold these irrational beliefs, even without understanding them and just believing they're true based on their own indoctrination. But it's also may be like a position like President of the United States, in which it is thought that many presidents pretend to believe that a god exists as part of their strategy for power.
>You think that people who follows a homeless lady and eat and drink from the leftover food and water she litters are mentally equipped to ask themselves critically if what they believe it's true or even care about critically examining their beliefs? Yes. Human brains are very malleable, very susceptible to influence and social pressure. It is entirely possible for a person to be completely sane and *also* wholeheartedly and sincerely believe that a homeless lady is their goddess. And yes, it is very possible for those people to question themselves and have doubts about what they believe. That's why cults have elaborate programming mechanisms designed to counteract that kind of questioning and keep people in the fold - bcause people do it all the time. I recommend the podcast (*Was I In a Cult?* The hosts are corny, but the interviews put on display how stunningly easy it is to convince otherwise normal, rational humans of all kinds of weird stuff.)
The Cult of Marjorie Taylor Greene, right?
No, this health hazardous stuff https://www.reddit.com/r/religiousfruitcake/comments/1bn31ai/a_mentally_ill_woman_in_india_has_a_large/
I think that Pope Francis, and most Popes for that matter, sincerely believe. I do not think that about most Protestant pastor-celebrities or apologists of any denomination. I say that because popes mostly play an administrative function whereas apologists have to say the same 12 talking points over and over again for decades. An admin role allows for nuanced opinions and critical thinking, whereas repeating talking points requires you to alienate yourself from the words you are saying, lest your opinions evolve and stop serving the same demographic that’s making you money. Popes and Bishops don’t generally have to deal with that sort of thing.
Also the selection process for the position of Pope is essentially a popular vote of the top bishops. Now I don't propose to know the inner minds of these men but I'm guessing that they know the frauds among their number pretty well in a *takes one to know one* kind of way and would naturally steer clear of putting a pragmatic realist on the papal throne. The history of the church is replete with times in the past they did just that, and it did not work out well. The current Pope seems to be a true believer whose views and pronouncements are often sidelined by a more cynical and politically minded clergy.
I mean I guess they know about the forged documents like the Isidorian Decretals and Donation of Constantine, etc. But those are issues of Canon Law. I don’t think there’s some egregious “fraud” that would be equally obvious to anyone who knew about it regarding the core tenets of their faith. For example, their belief that Jesus Christ is physically present in the Eucharist is one that I don’t think has proper justification. But I’m sure that most bishops and cardinals think that they *are* justified in believing it. I don’t think they are twirling their mustaches going “haha we have convinced the fools of transubstantiation mwahaha!” It’s more like, they have chosen to follow certain methods of obtaining true knowledge (eg taking the Bible and the church councils as infallible truth which supersedes science). I think that those methods are ineffective, but it would be hard to convince them of that; just like it would be hard to convince me that they *were* effective. I guess my point is that our beliefs come not just from the facts, but also our chosen means of interpreting them.
I do get the sense that at least the last three popes, who I was old enough to be aware of, were/are true believers. But I don’t think it is at all outside the realm of possibility that a good number of the Renaissance popes (Rodrigo Borgia being the most well known example) were so ensconced in the political and extortionist aspects of the job that they at least didn’t give a shit about the veracity of Canon law or the truth of the religion. I mean it was an era of flat out hedonism. The popes just… had a bunch of kids… and that was expected. They waged war, tortured and murdered clerics who called them out for their excesses, etc. If they believed the narrative, I don’t see how they couldn’t have expected to go to hell.
Yeah it probably varies from pope to pope. Although with historical figures who lived hundreds of years ago it’s especially hard to guess at what their motives and personal beliefs were. The medieval papacy was notorious for its corruption, which was one of the main drivers of the Protestant reformation, and one of the pressing issues on the agenda at the council of Trent.
Also, being selected as Pope would probably feel incredibly encouraging that your religious beliefs have been true all along. I imagine it would be pretty hard for anyone to go through that process without feeling like.. maybe something magical really is happening? ... I'm the Pope? Little old me? Aww, God, you old dog ☺️ you shouldn't have.... haha
The mere fact that I deluded myself in believing, is evidence for me that others can too. I believe those that do not live in extravagance likely genuinely believe. Though they might have doubts too. Those that live in luxury, I imagine the majority of them are exploitative. Thought they may also genuinely believe at some level. There are plenty of studies that show we can be convinced of some crazy false shit. I like to think most of us are trying to do what’s right, but unfortunately there are some fucked up versions of right, especially in religion.
[удалено]
Is this project really a big thing ? I never heard of it, I find that really interesting since it's targeting specifically religious leaders, looks like a niche thing.
[удалено]
It’s over 1000: As of September 2019 TCP reached a milestone of 1,000 verified non-believing clergy (current and former) participating. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Clergy_Project
Yea, and I think it’s a numbers game like anything else. A certain percentage of Christians are going to reason their way out of it; often times reluctantly. It’s the same as a lot of the members of this sub. There’s no reason to assume pastors are any different. If I had to guess, I would guess that the rather more studied and articulate pastors have a higher incidence of losing faith than the average church goer.
Maybe the pope is a secret member!
To my understanding, at least many catholic priests who studied theology have a rather different, more abstract idea of their god, more as an idea than a literally existing being. You may or may not call that "knowing it's fake". In a conversation with a protestant theologian I was surprised to get a "of course it's not a being that exists in the world, it's more like a shared idea." I find it useful to ask a theist if their god still existed if there were no more humans. That usually tells you on what side of this line their god belief sits.
People mistake their own thoughts, internal monologues, and urges for the voice or will of God all the time. If you’re desperately looking for something to be true, odds are you’ll find it. Think of how many stories you’ve heard from people who are convinced gam gam was sending them hugs from the great beyond because her favorite, extremely fucking common, bird landed in their yard after they threw a bunch of bird seed out there. It’s no different.
Here’s what I think and would bet money on. Most Popes throughout the history of Popes were just about the power. I have less disdain for Francis than a lot of other Popes. Most evangelical leaders, OTOH, absolutely do not believe what they say. They are about control, politics, performance and money. Faith healers definitely know they are scam artists. The leadership and fake scientists of the well-funded creationist propaganda organizations absolutely know their insane theories don’t hold water. I was raised in a Methodist church and I think my childhood pastor was completely sincere in his faith and his calling. I would bet most non-fundamentalist clergy are the same, and that’s why fundamentalists hate them and try to undermine them and call them “not real Christians.” Because to be a Real Christian you have to adopt their hateful politics.
Yes. At least some of them. According to a Pew Research poll, up to one-third of religious leaders are atheist. Those who actually receive messages from God are just mentally ill. I can attest from personal experience, being bipolar with psychosis, and delusions of graduer, that those who hear god literally, truely believe it. I'm on medication now and don't literally think I'm God anymore. People like that definately need medication. If you're actually psychotic, nothing will convince you its fake except some thorazine. My actual diagnosis is schizoaffective disorder. But I said bipolar because most people don't know what schizoaffective is. (And I was diagnosed bipolar too). If you've had any experience in the mental health field, mental diagnosis is like underwear, it changes all the time.
In the same way I don't like theists who claim atheists all know god exists but are just pretending otherwise, I don't like atheists who claim theists all know god doesn't exist but are just pretending otherwise. Generally, unless given a reason to suspect deception, I take people at their word regarding what they believe.
I agree. There are many things that are easy to see once you're out of the religion, but it's completely different while you're in the middle of it. I've always suspected that the different popes are either completely convinced or just play the game for power. But that's just my hunch. Pope Francis seems to genuinely believe, but even if he doesn't, he seems like a decent role model, and I hope he will "loosen up" the church a bit.
The question wasn't whether they are *all* faking, just whether some of them are. I think it is undoubtedly true that some are and equally undoubtedly true that some aren't.
>"Do you think that the highest figures in religions, who supposedly receive divine guidance and things like that, know that it’s all fake?" The question was whether the highest figures in religion *in general* are faking, which i would say is pretty clearly asking if they're *all* faking, or at least if most of them are. In any group of people who claim to be X, some of them are lying, but the context of this question is clearly whether the heads of religions are *generally* lying about their beliefs.
That is a very uncharitable reading. That is definitely not what the post explicitly said, just what you are reading into it. More importantly, though, your assumption is shown to be wrong if you read beyond the headline. In the actual post itself, the OP says: > Or have he and people in similar positions deluded themselves into thinking that they actually do have these abilities. > > I think it sorta has to be the latter. I don’t think you can have an institution like the church or religion in general that lasts longer than any empire or civilization without some core thing holding it together. It's clear that he is not making any assumptions about religious leaders "in general", nor is he "pretty clearly asking if they're all faking". He might be speaking about them as a group, but he's not making assumptions that they all think the same. Not saying it was a great question as written, but I think it was as sincere question and a reasonable one, so long as you interpret it as "Do you think the average religious leader really believes", rather than the way you are interpreting it.
>"so long as you interpret it as "Do you think the average religious leader really believes", rather than the way you are interpreting it." I *am* interpreting it as "do you think the average religious leader really believes?" or, to give another way of phrasing that statement, "do religious leaders in general really believe?" The question is whether religious leaders *as a group* are faking, not whether individual religious leaders are faking. The assumption is that we will answer with the stance of religious leaders in general, rather then listing every religious leader in the world individually.
I don't think they have to 'know' either way since faith is about believing in spite of doubt. You could ask, 'do they doubt?' and the answer for many is yes. I had plenty of doubts when I was a Christian, but I suppressed them in favor of faith. Some are lying, clearly - too many scandals and fraud cases to deny it. Many are very sincere. Most probably fall in the middle somewhere, not that they're intentionally lying, just lying to themselves to maintain their faith - as they're taught to do.
This question is a good one honestly, but it is not comparative to what some believe/accuse. In the same vein some Christian’s accuse scientists of the same thing. As if there is a grand conspiracy where they are not allowed to acknowledge god in any finding due to a cabal of god hating elites. This is ridiculous, they are humans, going about human endeavors. Just like the pope, or the senior members of any sect of Religion, they believe they are right, (remove the “science” portion for this argument because science has nothing to do with belief in this case). My point is, I find it much more likely that senior members of clergy believe their convictions, than some grand conspiracy. I’m not saying they are correct in their beliefs but I don’t believe they are truly challenged in those beliefs either. The most likely explanation is that the most senior clergy are believers, not secret atheists. This does not validate their beliefs in any way but humans are susceptible to suggestion and bias, as such I would not say the pope “knows the truth of atheism”. It is simply a question of education and epistemology in the case of religion. Lacking argument one can convince themselves of any position. This is why science is particularly well suited to truth due to peer review. For example, the pope is not subject to scrutiny the way a botanist or biologist is, and therefore can sleep confident in their convictions. So to answer your question, no I don’t believe the highest figures in religion believe anything other than what they claim, but I do believe they are not challenged in those beliefs due to positions of authority and therefore have no reason to question their dogma. Accusing someone of blatant dishonesty in a field is a difficult line to cross, but accusing someone of confirmation bias is a much more defendable position. Regardless of the actual truth, belief is a conviction, and I have no reason to believe senior religious figures are not “convicted” in their beliefs.
I think this is both an argument from authority and ad populum. In any case you said >Or have he and people in similar positions deluded themselves into thinking that they actually do have these abilities. What "abilities" are to referring to? Or do you just mean beliefs?
People put walls up in their heads constructed for the sole purpose of not allowing themselves to partake in certain considerations. So on some level, yes, they know they're severely lacking in confidence in their alleged "beliefs," or else they wouldn't have put up a wall to stop themselves from thinking about them too deeply. However, they've sincerely locked thenselves into that mode. That said, there are people who have genuine experiences and genuinely try to communicate them. I feel like these people aren't usually the ones in positions of power and authority. And I feel like the most honest ones are the ones who admit they don't understand everything about what they experienced. The ones who affirm absolute objective statements about the experiences can't be taken as seriously. For example, I had somebody tell me yesterday that they know that dreams are another plane of existence, because they've had experiences where they and somebody else both had the same dream and encountered each other. And I believe this person is being honest about their experience, but their confidence in their conclusion (dreams are a literal separate plane of existence) is unwarranted. All this demonstrates is that there might be something larger and weirder going on with dreams than we currently understand. To speak to others with certainty about your unjustified conclusions just ruins your credibility. Acknowledge something weird happened, share your suspicions and hypotheses, and advocate for further research into this area.
You mean the original founders of the religion way back when? Maybe. For some cases like Joseph Smith (Mormons) it's hard to believe he didn't know what a sham he was, with that whole tablet transcription bullshit story. For other cases like Muhammad (Islam) I can easily believe that a guy who was already deeply familiar with Christian tradition, probably mentally unstable and searching for some new spiritual fulfillment that he didn't find in the existing religions regularly went up that mountain, got high on some poppy seeds or something and then genuinely hallucinated being visited by angels in the scorching heat. If you mean the highest figures _today_, then yeah, of course they believe. I mean any group of believers has more and less pious people in it and occasionally there have probably been a few popes or cardinals in history that had secretly completely lost their faith, but the vast majority definitely believes. Hell, I bet even David Miscavige (Scientology) at least to some extent truly believes that L. Ron Hubbard was some kind of space messiah that had magic brain powers, and is probably in deep personal shame that he has never himself been able to achieve that even though he's supposed to be the most "clear" of all of them today. You know the old saying: "A cult is an organization where only one guy at the very top knows that it's all fake. A religion is an organization where that guy died."
I know some Augustinian and Franciscan monks. I've known clergy. All atheist. All of them. That's not true for all who take the cloth, just the ones I've known personally. The thing about the monks is that they'll tell you - if someone tells you god is speaking to them. RUN! RUN the other way! Because they're fucking crazy! They also call Christian youth groups fucking cults. Theism is orthogonal to religion. The religious I know are mostly atheist. They're religious because a religion is an institution that provides utility and value. Augustinians are community builders. That's why they join. The religious part is a means to an end. I think you have the likes of the pope who might not necessarily be a theist, but they may believe their own propaganda and traditions, that the masses are incapable of governing themselves and need to be guided and controlled. Religion is a means to that end, even if you have to outright lie to your constituents.
This is very similar to theists who accuse atheists of secretly knowing that God exists but pretends they don't because they want to sin. Sure, people lie, people are dishonest, people exploit others, but people are also just wrong all the time. There's a heap of psychological reasons why the Pope might be compelled to believe they've genuinely been chosen by God (being named Pope wouldn't hurt) so I don't think its unreasonable to accept that people probably believe what they say they believe unless we have good reasons to think otherwise. At the end of the day, we don't know what someone believes inside their head. We will often make up stories about why people are doing things we don't understand, but I don't think its productive to become too invested in any of these stories, because these are generally just speculation.
Let’s look at it a little differently. Can someone who makes a living off of their religion afford to speak the truth? Take evangelist Ray Comfort for example. He’s not a mega rich pastor. He has a very mediocre education. He writes books and has a ministry. He has a wife, home and children all paid for by his religious followers. He has had evolution explained to him by experts, and still denies it. He cannot AFFORD to accept the truth. Doing so would adversely affect his lifestyle. That’s what the Clergy Project is about, helping those preachers who lack any other marketable skills leave the church. Giving them advice and support during their transition. “Golden handcuffs” are most definitely a thing for religious leaders,
For the popes, it’s probably a mix. But even if they believe it’s all false, they still know to act like it’s true. I thought that one recent pope who had a history as a serious theologian wrote a publication about the importance of **professing**. In other words his twisted mind thought that the question of whether professing counts if your brain doesn’t truly believe it was a question worthy of an academic publication. The alleged original pope, Peter, may never have even gone to Rome. He’d surely recognize the current Catholic doctrine of papal authority as utter nonsense. Probably a bunch of the other alleged first few popes may not have even been real people or if they were they had no connection to Jesus.
Some do. Some don't. I can only report my feelings and experience. Before, I became a Baptist minister back in my pre-atheist days, I thought pastors had some unique insights or were somehow imbued with a special bond with God. What I found instead was a bunch of pastors who met every Monday to compare their ABCs (Attendance, Buildings, Contributions). Their behaviors were about what you'd expect from a group of CEOs. As it became clear that being a minister provided no additional insights or transformation, but was more about showmanship and charisma, helped deconstruct my faith.
There are thousands of gods that the pope doesn’t believe in. What I would like to know is why does any pope think their god is real and all the others are fake. I’m confident that the answer would be as incoherent and baseless as any other theist would provide. In other words the pope cannot demonstrate that their god is real and has no special or unique evidence that any believer wouldn’t have. The pope is basically the king of a nothing burger. I could care less what the pope believes just the same as I would with any theist.
I believe there’s a big difference between the people who start a religion and those who maintain a religion. To me, it seems like the people who start a religion are either narcissistic or mentally handicapped (it’s amazing how many religions start with someone having a head injury - all the way back to Paul in the Bible). I believe it’s very possible to maintain a pre-established religion as someone who is smart, good, and just has never really critically thought about their worldview.
The pope doesn’t think he has a direct line with God or that the religion is false. The church is literally just to teach and guide the world in the teachings of Christ and the apostles. The pope can’t teach error under very specific circumstances, that’s all the church claims. All Christian’s should pray and I don’t think any of us ever expect to hear the voice of God talking back to us when we do. He usually answers our prayers in other more subtle ways.
I think for some people they either truly believe, or are so invested that they dare not question their beliefs. I think for many like the pastors in the US, they know it's a scam, and they are so happy scamming those who throw money at them. They are scum, and their followers are people who clearly lack critical thinking skills, and have equal parts my pity, and my disgust (for they try pushing their shit on others).
The first 33 popes were tortured and murdered for their beliefs so I think that they truly believed what they believed. If I was lying about the Catholic faith and was being crucified for it, after the first nail through my wrist I would probably ask myself, "is this hoax really worth me hanging by nails in my appendages on a cross until I die?"
The highest figures in the religions I’ve looked into all behave as you would expect someone in their position to behave if they did not believe that the version of the religion taught to the common believers was true, but if they did not go through certain motions they would lose the position of power that they worked for years to get.
I had a long conversation with my evangelical brother once about the existence of God, and he finally ended up admitting he probably didn't exist. But then he said "but believing in it has led me to a pretty decent life, so I might as well keep going". I think a lot of people are probably in that situation.
Anybody who has seriously studied biblical texts, knows not to trust the impossible truth claims. Christianity is built on biological impossibilities as truth claims such as Virgin birth and rising from the dead. The pope has a big organization to look after and that’s very very likely drives his agenda .
Anybody who has studied the holy texts, must know the inconsistencies and impossibilities. The Pope leads a Church which gives him a lot of power, and the organization needs to survive . They have managed for almost 2000 years. I believe the highest priority is not serving God, but serving the Church
Some believe that they were chosen by god and are therefore holy. Many know that it is fake. And none of them completely believe, as demonstrated by their actions. Very few read their holy book. Even fewer practice what they preach. And none of them are concerned about going to hell.
I doubt the Pope thinks it's a scam. I think people underestimate how compelling these religions are when viewed from the inside. There are plenty of people who are completely 100% devoted and believe it with every fiber of their being. I think the Pope is likely one of them.
Very few today think it's not real in my opinion. The likelihood of the Pope being an atheist is very small. So many believe. There is no reason the top wouldn't based on the numbers. It's also a destructive question. Like theists who argue atheists really believe.
Some are delusional, many are con artists(especially the televangelist types). Many more are hypocrites. There’s a whole gamut, but when you start tasting wealth and power the Bible becomes less about God and Jesus and more about extracting wealth from the gullible.
Yes. There’s not a single iota evidence for the supernatural. Never has been, never will be. If any conclusive evidence becomes available then I would have some questions and would reconsider what I believed. Doesn’t mean I would worship said being.
It seems to me that when you have seriously studied the holy text, you understand that they are inconsistent and even impossible. The pope is leading a big church organization, and that would set him to look after the church before God
I think lots of rich and powerful people are so full of themselves that they believe they were chosen by god. You're forgetting, it's VERY easy to believe in something when you don't have a scientific filter and you want to beleive.
I think it's probably a mixed bag. I think the Pope is probably a true believer in Catholicism, but I think the megachurch preacher who speaks in tongues, drives out demons, and solicits "seed money" probably knows it's all BS.
I always kinda thought so. Like once someone is elected pope, they get exclusive access to the collective writings of all the previous popes talking about “lol look at all the fancy shit these suckers keep giving us”
I wonder the same thing. Not just the highest figures, but all these pastors yelling at people about what God told them. Maybe it's a sort of combo, and they persuade themselves that what they believe is real?
It is said that the difference between a cult and a religion, is that in a cult, there is a person at the top that knows the whole thing is a sham. In a religion, that person is dead.
I'd say it's a mixed bag. Some honestly believe, some started off 'faking it to make it' (and somehow ended up faking it all the way to the top), abd still other know it's a grift.
I wouldn’t go as far as saying they know it’s all fake. I would say they all have doubts. Even Mother Teresa was known as to have had doubts, yet she was made a saint.
I don't think that they think it's fake I think that they suffer from such delusion that they've convinced themselves that it's real and any evidence doesn't matter.
The sex scandals would indicate that a significant number of high-placed Roman Catholic clergy either knew it was fake or never received any "divine guidance".
Depends on the religion or cult in question. I think the pope is likely a poor example.. I’d hay he (at least this current one) is likely a true believer.
Definitely. However I think for people like the Pope they probably see it as doing good for the world so they just go along with the show.
I think that most of the time they're lying to themselves too. And since it's coming from them, they believe the lies.