If I told you an invisible pink dragon lived in my attic, am I being honest with you?
The predicted answer is "no" if you truly believe that this pink elephant is actually there. In this case, you would be deluded rather than dishonest.
I think this is an important consideration for those that rely on reason and reject superstition and the supernatural as answers for questions in the universe. This is because we often overlook the fact that delusion, while clearly present in those that accept religious "truths" (particularly those "truths" that include supernatural and paranormal claims), doesn't imply dishonesty. I've been deluded many times in my life and will undoubtedly be victim of delusion again in the future. I once thought I saw a bear while hiking in the woods of Western PA. I was very sure that it was a bear and even believed I saw the "bear" move. I changed my course and gave the "bear" a wide berth.
As my perspective on the situation changed, my delusion became clear: my pattern-forming brain, ever on the lookout for dangers, potential mates and food identified a fallen tree with its exposed roots in shadow as creating the form of a bear. Bears, being very real risks to hikers in the woods I was in, are worth avoiding. Had I been hiking in a region where bears aren't known to inhabit, I might have been more skeptical.
But my delusion doesn't make me dishonest. It just makes me gullible. I've hiked those woods previously and since and have seen bears on several occasions -usually around trash bins, so my gullibility on those occasions paid off.
I think that religious thought works the same way. Clearly, the religious are being gullible since there isn't a shred of evidence to support their claims to the degree that they generally exist (transubstantiation, virgin birth, zombie-ism, faith-healing, flying clergy, etc.). There is even substantial evidence that supports the counter claims
against their core beliefs (an ancient, slowly evolved planet full of life; a geologic record that excludes possibility of global flood, an archaeological record that precludes doctrinal myths, etc). Allowing for this gullibility, the religious are hedging their bets and seeing patterns that form beliefs that simply aren't their.
Like avoiding my "bear" in the woods, the theist expectations of afterlife, salvation, end-times, etc. might seem like the wise choices. If there's any dishonesty, it arises
after the core beliefs are instilled -after the delusion is set. Some theists refuse to accept evidence that doesn't support or contradicts their beliefs -some even suggest that the deception is that of Satan and they must not look at it!
Not allowing their perspective to change so that all sides of the issue are examined starts the journey toward dishonesty in their beliefs. Dishonesty is present for those that cannot
escape the change of perspective (i.e. those theists that obtain an education in science and still believe the Earth is 6,000 years old) and, certainly, those that
pretend to change perspective but really don't (i.e. those that
claim they've read & understand various scientific perspectives yet fail to demonstrate this to be true).
I won't say that simply believing that a god exists is dishonest. It might be delusion, but it isn't "dishonest." There are plenty of devout believers in god that accept their religious texts for what they are: beautiful works of literature that provide a basis for one of the world's religions. To them, their god is
capable of creating the universe through evolution and for them the laws of physics are gifts from their god.
I don't buy it, but I don't call these people dishonest since they truly believe that their pink elephant resides in their attics. I think they're deluded. But at least their delusion is honest.
I would, however, say that those that have had the opportunity to educate themselves or gain new perspectives yet remain anti-science to the degree that they oppose the laws of physics, the truth of chemistry, the presence of biological and anthropological evidences, and the validity of geology are all completely dishonest since they've completely buried their heads in the sand in favor of their delusions. Rather than modify or adapt their beliefs, they've chosen to reject the very sciences that have given to them automobiles, cell phones, computers, modern fabrics, agriculture, etc. They find no contradiction in both rejecting science when it doesn't conform to their pre-conceived conclusions, yet accepting it when it’s convenient.
