IT is really islly -- in my humble opinion -- to try and make an argument that something as remote from the commons of experience as religion can be called "real" in the normal sense; the term hinges on agreements about what is, and the reported territory is uniformly described as being beyond the sphere of common agreement. That's why it is a totally useless platform for a social strucxture, obviously--it is not of the world.

But that does not mean that a religious proposition is a delusion in the sense of an insane perception, merely that it is an "Other" perception.

It is problematical to differentiate between such perceptions and the kind of plastic self-hypnosis that people resort to under stress, though. That's why the whole subject is seen as so "iffy" by some folks.



A