How does one distinguish faith from delusion?

For context I should probably add that I was entering into puberty and the situation lasted about a year maybe two with no recurrence (that I have noticed ). My edit was to add in the last paragraph to mike, you might have conflated my message with my reply to its reply where I said "Some people are driven to murder or suicide by faith based beliefs, not just the more classic delusional beliefs such as paranoia." For some people, faith is built upon a single experience. And a single experience is not really classifiable as a delusion, its either reflective of reality or a hallucination, mistake or false memory or the ilk. But some people believe themselves to be in continual communication with a specific entity that guides them or instructs them. Sometimes this is nearly harmless and they get on with their lives more or less normally - some might say even more happily than most others.
But others find their lives more significantly impacted.
The question is - is it possible to differentiate between someone who is suffering delusions and someone who has deep faith and has recurring experiences affirming this position? This definition is all well and good - but why? It seems you are deliberately discounting the possibility of communal delusions but I think we should seriously consider such a possibility when we examine a group like Heaven's Gate.And what if a delusion could exist, could be come communal and does not commonly drive its victims to suicide or murder but drives them instead to simply spread the delusion? I agree it is akin to meme theory, but would we not expect if such a monster exists, for it to show certain properties such as exploiting cognitive weaknesses common to many if not all humans?I'm not making a concrete claim here - just pointing out that your definition might result in overlooking something. I agree. Most people I meet who say they have faith are in this category - but not all. When some encounter a collision between their 'worldview' and conclusions derived from science they become resistant to the contradictory position - sometimes angrily and in a manner that would seem disproportionate. Is accusing friends or family of lying and being part of a conspiracy (unwittingly or otherwise), and ranting about some great scientific hoax just because someone mentioned that birds evolved from dinosaurs, really not something we might consider the act of someone suffering under a delusion?

I don't talk about it a lot - I still worry that it'll come back though it was more than half a lifetime ago. Yes - it was terrifying. So when Abraham was about to kill his son he was deluded, for example?What about when Jesus for all intents and purposes killed himself?I know what you are saying about religions et al. However, you seem to be saying that if your experience has all the qualities of a delusion, but falls within cultural norms then it is faith.I would argue that this is simply avoiding the issue, no? If you go back through my posts long enough, you will see me discussing my own pantheism. If I had been a member long enough you would have seen me discussing things through an Eastern thought lens. I even ended up following Osho for a while. I think that modern psychology has now surpassed the (admittedly noble) beginnings that eastern philosophy began. Empiricism has a lot to say about morality. See Descriptive ethics.Of course, empiricism does not engage in normative ethics, which is what you referred to. This is not 'interesting' I feel, but obvious.However, empiricism can engage - in part - with normative ethics via descriptive ethics. First though, we need to define what goals we have in mind when we are trying to establish an ethical system. Then we can look around and see which of the various ethical systems in use gets closest to the goals we want, and then perhaps experiment with minor changes to try and get closer.This is pretty much standard in the 'liberal west', now. So much so we barely notice we're doing it. But we do it so rapidly, that that the norms of the previous generation look almost completely barbaric (did some western nations really used to arrest gays for having sex just a few decades ago? We're seriously discussing allowing gays to marry today!)We frequently use evidence of how certain ethical ideas can help build a society to be stronger (either by increasing happiness, cooperation, decreasing suffering etc etc), or use data to discover which ideas are destructive or cause stagnation etc.Our experiences, as well as improved methods for gathering and analysing such data, has been vital to shaping our present morality. Don't write off the usefulness of empiricism in morality. If you think that declaring somebody to be suffering significantly mentally ill is something done lightly?How can you say that empiricism has little to say about determining the mental health of somebody?First of all, you need to establish what their symptoms are. You need to establish whether the person can function in society without intervention, whether therapy alone will be of use - or if therapy plus drugs is going to be better. You need to weigh the risks of what you propose to the patient versus the risks of not doing what you propose. As good an understanding as possible of the brain, how it functions and what is occuring in the patient's brain and it how it might differ from the norms is useful. All of this requires data obtained through decades of study, to make as good a conclusion as possible.Obviously, if they were doing this to Jesus and it turns out that Jesus really was an amazing spiritual being and not a delusional apocalyptic madman - then I'd hope that being an amazing spiritual being has the benefits of being able to get your message across to the right people before accepting the modern day cross of mental health care...or something. Exactly. And we can devise completely independent tests to try and verify our conclusions. If you know of another epistemological methodology that can be employed by blind independent investigators to verify your results (especially if that method is able to calculate the expected error margins and confidence levels etc), then I'd like to hear it. Any evidence which cannot be experienced is already invisible (and unhearable, unsmellable, untasteable and well...presumably entirely undetectable). So since we cannot detect it, we cannot know that it even exists. Yes we can. We define what a god is, what the consequences of such an entity existing are, and then we devise a test to see if those consequences have borne out. For example, if we define a god as being an entity that answers the prayers of others, we do a 'prayer experiment' if the results show that those that pray get positive results above and beyond chance we have ourselves some evidence in favour of this go.The more defined the god, the more evidence we collect the more confidence we have in its existence.abe: Of course, if you carefully define god so as to be unempirically demonstrable, then your point is trivial. The point I'm making is that god is empirically demonstrable or not depending on how one chooses to define said god. The idea isn't just mocking - there is a serious point behind it. It is a challenge to rigorously define your epistemology such that it includes the ability to know that a god exists or Ultimate Truth, or ghosts or whatever while also excludes any number of other beings we can dream up. If it can't - the epistemology has been show to be absurd: Reductio ad absurdum.The shocking thing is that people who champion this alternative epistemology spend more time getting defensive about how offensive or 'mocking' this argument is than they do actually rigorously defining their alternative epistemological method. I entirely agree. I particularly enjoyed "Socrates'" arguments for the immortality of the soul - even if I still believe it contains some significant flaws. Philosophy is a rigorous pursuit of logic and argument in search of eking out truths about the world - woolly statements about vague possibilities aren't philosophy, though many people mistake it as such. Correct. It is empirical evidence. And physicalists suggest that this interconnectedness is because the mind is what the brain does - the brain being part of the body.It seems better than something akin to the pineal gland idea of Descartes, no? I just think we should take into consideration that a witnesses memory should be considered a very delicate crime scene with great care taken to avoid contaminating it. I would be very tempted to eliminate the use witnesses in criminal trials, but not entirely - it is a topic in its own right.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

With hallucinogens one's grip on reality and perception of things cycles quite rapidly. These aren't really delusions - they are hallucinations. The visual hallucinations (the land moving like the sea or faces appearing in reflections of light from puddles in mud etc) are easily understood to be hallucinations. Then again, you can become completely convinced that your thoughts control reality and that everything that is happening is because you thought about it happening seconds previously. Perhaps you are convinced you are an intrepid explorer, defining reality by discovering its boundaries. Or other strange affects, those kind of hallucinations can be convincing for hours at a time. There may be niggling questions or doubts, but they can remain very much in the background.Many faith-based believers report similar experiences, of 'questioning their faith' and 'having doubts' but winning through their spiritual war and having a stronger faith because of it.The advantage someone has who has taken a drug, is that they preserve the memory of having taken a psychoactive drug - and when they access that memory it can remind them of the nature of their unusual experiences...but it is difficult if not impossible to keep it in mind for long periods of time (just as it is sometimes difficult to remind yourself that you have had a lot to drink and that maybe calling your ex- is actually bad idea right now).

Those questions have very little meaning in of by themselves. They are a list of what I call mumbojumbo.The only one that has any meaning is the last. I don't know enough about psychology but I would venture to guess that there are measurable effects one feels when they fall in love. I know I have physical reactions to my wife(and I do not mean all sexual). I would love to see some studies on love and falling in love, but I do not think it is highly subjective.As for the other questions. Why would anyone want to develop a way to test them? According to religious people they are things that are inherent. I do not have to develop a system to test them. This would be like me trying to develop a test to prove or disprove little brown fairies. We cannot test for the existence of things that are just human ideas and mental constructs. Is this any different then developing a test to see if a work of fiction was real?Your question has no point to those that do not belief in faith. Maybe that is why Straggler does not answer. Maybe he does not see any point. I sure don't.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

quote:

---

We cannot test for the existence of things that are just human ideas and mental constructs.

---

I have some suggestions which may assist your contributions to this thread.There are other ways of perceiving. Philosophy is concerned with these. Message 140 This time maybe you can read the whole post and not skip to the questions at the end.Find out what epistemology means and be aware that you are advocating one particular kind. As far as I can tell, no one epistemology is applicable to all situations all the time, not even empiricism, which has been discussed.Realise that despite your personal opinion, the list of questions from Message 140 has actually intrigued many thoughtful people for centuries. IMO they are questions which cannot be answered empirically, so there must be other epistemologies we need to employ. It's interesting that your reaction is to avoid having to do so at all by dismissing the questions themselves.I think we're straying from the topic here, which is the difference between faith and delusion.

I think your issue is not that I do not accept a philosophical way of looking at things but that I reject your philisophical way of looking at things.I read your full post, it did not move me in any way. You claim that I am incapable of understanding philosophical arguments. In that you are wrong. I understand many of the arguments. I do not find moat of them very convincing.Just because a person does not agree does not make them stupid or wrong. You seem to have a problem with my take on things. This does not mean you are correct.I find empiricism is a very good way to function in life. Empirical data seems to be the basis of what makes me function. I also think everyone functions on empirical data. Your subjective evidence that leads to faith is just how your brain deals with the empirical data you have received through life. The difference between myself and other people is how I deal with that empirical data internally.I reject that there is anything else besides empirical data and how we as individuals deal with and sort that data internally. We only have five senses, but with those senses different people can have vastly different interpretations of the data coming in. The brain is a very interesting, complex and scary thing.You may well believe there are other ways of perceiving, but ultimately it is the data coming in from the five senses and how the brain deals with that data. Nothing more. I reject that there is a sixth sense or some sort of spiritual element.That ma'am is a valid philosophical viewpoint. It may be different than yours but it is no less valid.We cannot test for the existence of things that are just human ideas and mental constructs.BTW, I know what epistemology is.I am an empiricist. I do not believe in intuition and I do not believe that world is a construct of the mind. I do believe people have different perceptions of reality, but ultimately there is a reality. Why must they be answered? Does thinking of an answer make you feel better. What does this mean? Do you feel I am ignorant or there is something wrong with me because I find no value in your questions. They are your questions.I have yet to hear an argument of why faith is different from delusion without people using judgmental statements and subjective evidence. Subjective evidence is completely non-convincing. People have used subjective evidence for Nessy, Bigfoot and ghosts. Why should I think any subjective evidence for faith is any different?Edited by Theodoric, : Spelling

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Me? Are you going to tell RAZD, LindaLou and yourself that subjective and non-empirical evidence is off topic too? Or just me? And a quick reminder of the topic before you tell me that that LindaLou's questions on empiricism are more relevant than my questions on the basis of faith (which date back much much earlier both in terms of posts in this thread and other threads but which still remain unanswered by the way). So what is this evidence that forms the basis of faith? Message 160If you are prepared to accept that subjective immaterial evidence is no form of evidence at all then we can move on to the objective material evidence that you claim exists?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

In one corner we have the objectively evidenced and indisputable fact that humans are prone to inventing supernatural entities.In the other corner we have immaterial subjective "evidence". A form of evidence that requires that we have a non-material "sixth" sense in order that we can experience it at all. A form of evidence from which the conclusions derived are no more reliable than random (or biased) guesses.In terms of superiority of evidence there is absolutely no contest at all. Message 3Indeed. I could not agree more.

Hi Modulous,

quote:

---

So when Abraham was about to kill his son he was deluded, for example?

​

What about when Jesus for all intents and purposes killed himself?

---

I can't vouch for the historical efficacy of these events. But yes I'd say that if Abraham thought Jehovah was telling him to kill his son, he was deluded, for the same reasons I gave about the divine or transcendent being of a loving and beneficent nature. I don't know if Jesus thought he was martyring himself but it wouldn't be the first time someone died for a cause; the cause is of course not always religious.

quote:

---

I know what you are saying about religions et al. However, you seem to be saying that if your experience has all the qualities of a delusion, but falls within cultural norms then it is faith.

​

I would argue that this is simply avoiding the issue, no?

---

No, I don't think so. I'm just conscious that our society almost universally dismisses such experiences as delusions, when instead we could possibly learn from some of them. The judgment of delusion is subjective and so we need to employ criteria like the ones I outlined in my last post. Maybe the dividing line between delusion and spiritual experience can be blurrier than we realise. Sometimes it may be impossible to tell the difference between the two, and the final decision rests with the judgment of the experiencer themselves after the fact. You decided, once your experience was over, that you had been deluded, and you had some good reasons for doing so. Someone else might decide that they had briefly received communication from the "other side." Why not let them think about it and see where it leads, as long as it's doing no harm to anyone?

quote:

---

Empiricism has a lot to say about morality. See Descriptive ethics.

---

I agree that descriptive ethics is empirical study. While it does not answer ethical questions themselves, it can show us how others do so. We can try to make decisions based on this though there's no guarantee that what works for some will work for others. The point I was making, which you say is obvious but clearly isn't to some here, is that empiricism cannot explain everything, and normative ethics is an example.

quote:

---

If you think that declaring somebody to be suffering significantly mentally ill is something done lightly?

---

In our society, yes. You might be interested in this article: In Your Head: Hearing Voices. I remember reading about this a few years ago and I was stunned. Hearing voices in one's head is more common than most people realise, and the majority of people who experience it "don't experience difficulties and may even consider their voices supportive or inspiring." Yet most of us would equate hearing voices with mental illness. This is why I said in my previous post that it's important to consider the experiencer's own views of the experience. If such a benign or helpful thing happened to me I would never consult a psychiatrist for fear of being labelled schizophrenic and drugged.

quote:

---

How can you say that empiricism has little to say about determining the mental health of somebody?

---

Yet the examples you gave after this quote imply that we already have strong suspicions that someone is mentally ill. This may be so if you think your wife is a hat. What if you believe you had an experience where you talked to Jesus and he talked back? What if you believe you have experienced enlightenment? And by all other appearances you are perfectly sane? Empiricism can't get us very far with making a decision. IMO we would need to apply some of the other epistemologies discussed here previously (some objective, some subjective, perhaps some more suitable than others in the circumstances): historical, textual, psychological, philosophical, logical, experiential, instinctive, anecdotal.

quote:

---

Obviously, if they were doing this to Jesus and it turns out that Jesus really was an amazing spiritual being and not a delusional apocalyptic madman - then I'd hope that being an amazing spiritual being has the benefits of being able to get your message across to the right people before accepting the modern day cross of mental health care...or something.

---

We know what happens to people who claim they are Jesus Christ. He'd have to do some serious miracle-working to save himself. Interesting idea that the psychiatrists could act as modern-day Pharisees.

quote:

---

we can devise completely independent tests to try and verify our conclusions. If you know of another epistemological methodology that can be employed by blind independent investigators to verify your results (especially if that method is able to calculate the expected error margins and confidence levels etc), then I'd like to hear it.

---

Well you need to use empirical methods within an empirical system. It works well for science but not always in other areas such as philosophy or spirituality.

quote:

---

We define what a god is, what the consequences of such an entity existing are, and then we devise a test to see if those consequences have borne out. For example, if we define a god as being an entity that answers the prayers of others, we do a 'prayer experiment' if the results show that those that pray get positive results above and beyond chance we have ourselves some evidence in favour of this go.

​

The more defined the god, the more evidence we collect the more confidence we have in its existence.

---

Well this is an approach you could take, but it means making a lot of guesses which cannot always be tested, and it also allows for a lot of assumptions. For example, let's say we conducted a study on the effectiveness of prayer and the results were positive. That still doesn't tell us whether the efficacy of prayer is due to a god answering prayers, or perhaps the collective consciousness of the praying people having some kind of effect on material reality, or something else. How do you then test to resolve this question? I don't see how you can. I also don't see how you could test concepts such as "God is good" or "God is merciful." See Message 180 for my attempts to explain why we are not finding empirical evidence for the divine or transcendent. I would be interested to hear your thoughts.

quote:

---

The idea isn't just mocking - there is a serious point behind it. It is a challenge to rigorously define your epistemology such that it includes the ability to know that a god exists or Ultimate Truth, or ghosts or whatever while also excludes any number of other beings we can dream up. If it can't - the epistemology has been show to be absurd: Reductio ad absurdum.

​

The shocking thing is that people who champion this alternative epistemology spend more time getting defensive about how offensive or 'mocking' this argument is than they do actually rigorously defining their alternative epistemological method.

---

In such cases, empiricism can simply leave us saying, "I can't be sure." And often that's still what we have to conclude. But the other epistemologies I listed earlier in this post can help us to be more certain about the existence of the transcendent versus the flying spaghetti monster. Some will simply say that lack of empirical evidence equals delusion but hopefully I've shown in this thread (along with others here) that this is not correct.

quote:

---

It is empirical evidence. And physicalists suggest that this interconnectedness is because the mind is what the brain does - the brain being part of the body.

---

That's getting on toward the opposite of what I was saying. I believe in meridians and energy healing. Eastern medicine has believed in these things for thousands of years. I also believe that Western science may one day verify these things empirically but I'm not fussed about whether it does or not. It doesn't contradict them. I do not believe this makes me deluded.These are long posts, and I lost the first response I typed to you. I am exhausted LOL.

If Western methods of investigation were to reliably show that such practises resulted in outcomes that were identical to a placebo would you reconsider your position?Is your position one of evidence (anecdotal or whatever) or is it a more conventional pure faith based approach (as per the topic)?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Hi Theodoric,Thank you for your honesty. I'm not asking you to adopt my personal beliefs. My position here is that calling someone deluded is a subjective judgment. Now the OP gives a definition of faith and one of delusion and the clear implication is that they are the same thing due to a lack of evidence. If you are an empiricist, which is one epistemology, then you will consider anything delusional which cannot be proved empirically. Maybe this is why you are so firm about disagreeing with any of the philosophical viewpoints I posited, or why thinking about the nature of existence does not appeal to you. Philosophy must be one enormous delusion in your regard. Presumably you would also reject all anecdotal evidence and never trust your gut instinct once in your life; your choice. You might just have a look at Message 180 for reasons why it is difficult if not impossible to study the divine or the transcendent empirically. IMO it's a bit disingenuous to claim there's no objective evidence when you can't even set up the test in the first place.

But evidence is not a subjective judgement. That is the problem with your thinking.A form of evidence either demonstrably and reliably leads to conclusions that are superior to guessing or it doesn't.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

quote:

---

If Western methods of investigation were to reliably show that such practises resulted in outcomes that were identical to a placebo would you reconsider your position?

​

Is your position one of evidence (anecdotal or whatever) or is it a more conventional pure faith based approach?

---

I think this is off topic but I will give a brief response. There are assumptions underlying scientific procedures, some more than others. If I'm told that the decay rate of potassium or uranium shows that a rock is 2.7 billion years old, and that there's good consilience between dates, then that's about as clear as it gets. No one has any reason to skew results of the tests, unless you're Steve Austin. Other types of studies can be more problematic, such as studies done on drugs or different systems of healing. A lot depends on who is doing the study, what they expect or want to find, how they set it up, what the methodology is, what the initial assumptions are . . . and so on. As usual you are asking me questions which are more complicated than you perhaps would like them to be, and I imagine you'll think that I'm being evasive again. But no, if science has shown unambiguously that a rock is old, it would be silly of me to disagree; I am doubtful that it is currently able to show unambiguously that energy healing is -- what word would you use? -- bunk, probably.To answer your last question, yes my belief is anecdotal. I don't think many scientific studies have been done in the subject. We do know that the body emits a weak electrical field, and that galvanism can be a problem in the mouth when incompatible metals are inserted. I also think we may reasonably posit that we can learn a thing or two from a system which has been practised for so long. Please don't try to debate me on this here. I already said I'd start a thread about the scientific study of the paranormal; I am researching and I've ordered a book, though at the moment this thread is keeping me busy.

Dude you never will see an answer. I have been asking these questions in one form or another for months. I am always "Off Topic" or "Irrelevant" or "Unimportant" or not worthy of an answer because I am a "liar". Whatever. Any excuse. No matter what it takes a way will always be found to avoid the questions. You have seen it in this thread but the reaction is the just the same in plenty of others. Is My Hypothesis Valid???Why "Immaterial Pink Unicorns" are not a logical argumentPercy is a Deist - Now what's the difference between a deist and an atheist?I even specifically challenged those who advocate such things to defend the whole "subjective evidence" argument as applied to immaterial entities here Immaterial "Evidence". But none of the main proponents of that position will deign to take part. Why?It is evasion pure and simple.Those who advocate the idea that immaterial entities are subjectively evidenced would rather bathe in a pool of man eating slugs than actually define what forms of immaterial evidence they do and don't consider valid. Because ultimately all are identical in terms of reliablity to (biased) guessing.My Message 160 remains in place.

quote:

---

But evidence is not a subjective judgement. That is the problem with your thinking.

---

The subjective judgment is claiming that you have access to The Truth while someone else doesn't, so you can call them delusional. Since you have personally rejected most epistemologies that have been mentioned here, I'm not sure what else you hope to gain from this thread. The fact of your rejection doesn't automatically cause everyone else's viewpoints to become invalid.

quote:

---

A form of evidence either demonstrably and reliably leads to conclusions that are superior to guessing or it doesn't.

---

Yet you still haven't explained what you mean by guessing (at what?), so by this point I'm going to assume you won't. There are quite a few people for me to talk to here now so please excuse me if I wait to see something new or original from you before I reply again.