So far in this thread I have pursued the idea that there are different ways of perceiving, and different ways to the truth (epistemologies), which make the decision to label someone as delusional a subjective one. While I think there's still a lot to talk about here, I would like to add some thoughts I had last night which went in a slightly different direction. From the OP again:
quote:
Faith - belief that is not based on proof. (dictionary.com)
Delusion - in psychology, a rigid system of beliefs with which a person is preoccupied and to which the person firmly holds, despite the logical absurdity of the beliefs and a lack of supporting evidence. (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2008)
A claim that repeatedly occurs is that spiritual faith is not empirically verifiable, therefore it is delusional. Another way to address this is to look at reasons why empirical evidence may be lacking in any situation. Some I thought of are:
1.) No scientific studies have been done.
2.) The studies that have been done, have been flawed.
3.) Funds for studies in a certain area are severely limited, so there have been very few.
4.) We do not yet have knowledge of a subject's existence (for example, the atom or the Big Bang to a person from the Middle Ages).
5.) We don't know how to detect the subject; we don't have the correct instruments (again, the atom is a good example).
6.) The subject of study is considered by the establishment to be inappropriate or illegitimate (e.g. those with the label of paranormal) or the establishment is slow to accept it (e.g. plate tectonics, the Channeled Scablands as the product of catastrophic floods).
7.) The evidence is being kept top secret or otherwise concealed (conspiracy theory, anyone?).
8.) People don't report phenomena for fear of being ridiculed (again, this often applies to paranormal subjects).
9.) The subject does not meet the requirement of being repeatable in experiments. (Ghost sightings can be included here, as can psi experiments done in laboratories when possibly the producer of the phenomena needs to be in a certain state of mind.)
10.) It is impossible to differentiate genuine evidence from wishful thinking or confirmation bias (e.g. trying to study whether mantras, positive thinking or the law of attraction actually work).
11.) The evidence has been erased (e.g. pre-cosmic microwave background universe, or human agency).
12.) The nature of the evidence depends on the person's preconceptions (e.g. negative observer effects; being on the lookout for events that demonstrate the principle of synchronicity -- if you accept it as legitimate in the first place).
13.) It can be hard to concretely determine cause and effect (e.g. the famous incident where Jung and Sigmund Freud were in a room when Jung began to feel an odd physical sensation. Then Jung and Freud heard a loud popping noise in a bookcase. After the first noise, Jung felt strongly that there was going to be a second noise, and said so. Then there was a second bang), especially if the two are separated by a significant amount of time. This can also include study of the effects of prayer.
IMO, the numbers above that could go some way to explaining why some people say there is no empirical evidence for the divine or transcendent are the following:
1.) No studies have been done.
4.) We do not have knowledge of the subject's existence (or at least, humans are not in agreement about whether the divine exists; seems to me you have to accept your subject's reality before you attempt to experiment on it).
5.) If it does exist, we don't know how to detect it objectively.
6.) Most people would say that a scientific study of the divine would be an impossibility.
9.) Divine phenomena, if they exist, are quite possibly unrepeatable at the experimenter's behest.
10.) It would be extremely difficult to separate legitimate evidence from wishful thinking or confirmation bias.
11.) In the case of Deism, the evidence has been erased. (God created everything and then sat back and let it unfold -- we missed that creation moment.)
12.) The nature of the evidence depends on people's preconceptions. If you don't believe in the divine in the first place, you are less likely to find evidence for it or accept it as legitimate if and when when it is discovered (experimenter bias).
13.) It can be hard to determine cause and effect. For example, while we know how lightning occurs and how it works, and that it's a random event, who's to say that there is not one divinely-caused lightning bolt out of all the rest that occurs for some specific reason.
Given the above complications, then lack of empirical evidence surely points to the conclusion "We don't know" rather than "God doesn't exist." Any thoughts?
Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.
Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2