|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How does one distinguish faith from delusion? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:Because this thread is not about detailed arguments for or against the existence of God. Such a discussion is a huge topic which would sidetrack this thread. I am not trying to "evade" your question. In case you are truly interested in understanding the evidence for God (as opposed to simply arguing against it), I recommended some resources in Message 102. When you've finished with these, I can recommend many more (such as the classic "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis, which I should have recommended the first time).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:I disagree. Analysis of evidence for any particular belief would only break down in subjective disagreements over how to evaluate the evidence. It would not answer how to distinguish faith from delusion, not in the individual case evaluated, and certainly not in general. The question in the OP is more of a philosophical/epistemological question. It asks for criteria, not for specific evidence. So, to get back to the topic of the OP:What sorts of evidence would you consider to be valid grounds for faith, whether in the realm of religion or of science? What sorts of evidence would you consider to be merely be evidence of delusion? Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:Why do you continue to insist on immaterial, subjective evidence? I have already mentioned a few specific forms of material, objective evidence in Message 108. I have also recommended a number of resources where you can find detailed discussion of the evidence. Have you read all of them already? quote:LindaLou's comments in Message 140 were earlier and more in line with the thread topic, yet you refuse to engage them. Instead, you reply with counter-questions which are further from the topic. And your postings are becoming less reasoned and more ad hominem. Are you here to learn and to understand, or simply to argue? (If you really want to discuss "immaterial evidence," I suggest that you discuss it in the thread Immaterial "Evidence" where it is exactly on-topic.) Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:On the other hand, isn't it true that some people having "a delusional experience" (e.g. those suffering from drug-induced hallucinations) suspect or realize that their delusions may not be real? I believe this rarely occurs with "a religious faithful experience"--it is nearly always thought to be real.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:Good point. Perhaps we could say that a "religious faith experience" is more cohesive and has more context than a "delusional experience." The religious experience is consistent with the worldview of the religion. It is also consistent with objective data such as the history and sacred texts of the religion, and with subjective data such as the shared experiences of other adherents.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:A good, objective summary of the position that some of us have. I mentioned the relation between faith and evidence in Message 94 by quoting from dictionary.com that "evidence" is a "ground for belief." There must be some reason for people to believe in things; people don't simply adopt beliefs for no reason. I believe this "reason" can usually be called "evidence," though we can quibble over the defintions. Personally, I wouldn't want to believe in God if I didn't see evidence for His existence. (I am trained as a scientist.) But I can't prove God's existence any more than I can prove the Big Bang. I believe that the evidence for both is compelling, but the evidence for both can also be rationally denied by someone who is not willing to accept the implications. As you suggest, I believe these things are strongly tied up with one's worldview or paradigm, which is very difficult to get outside of -- or even to recognize.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:Either you love your girlfriend or not; this is a fact which is either true or false. I don't follow what you mean by it not being "a truth for everyone." quote:I really don't see how this is fundamentally different from the question of whether or not you love your girlfriend. Both are questions of fact. Neither are "scientific" statements, so cannot be tested scientifically. What do you see as the fundamental difference between these two claims of fact? Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Deleted crappy subtitle.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:Three points: 1) I believe your definition of "evidence" is too strict. It disagrees with dictionary.com, which defines "evidence" as "ground for belief." 2) Even if the only evidence for religious faith were subjective, this would not put it on a par with "guessing." Subjective evidence is stronger than no evidence at all. Yes, subjective evidence can be unreliable, but it is not necessarily so. 3) Religious faith generally claims objective as well as subjective evidence. Reducing religious faith to the merely subjective is incorrect.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:It's good to see you admit this possibility. But unless pressed, you regularly dismiss this possibility as if it doesn't exist. Your posts regularly assume that the only evidence for faith is subjective. (e.g. see Message 237)quote:I accept that would make a difference (even though I disagree that such evidence for gods exists) but can we deal with one form of evidence at a time? quote:No, let's not. You seem to be convinced that "subjective, immaterial evidence" is a poor criterion for distinguishing faith from delusion. That's fine, and may even be correct. So let's quit discussing it and discuss things that are good criteria instead, as the OP suggests: How do you distinguish between a delusional experience you have had and a religious faithful experience you have had? What criteria do you use?
If you really want an in-depth discussion of "subjective, immaterial evidence" there is another thread Immaterial "Evidence" which is a more appropriate place for this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:Your OP was written much more broadly, and did not restrict the discussion to "subjective evidence." If this is what you meant, I wish you had spelled it out more clearly in your OP. (In which case I probably would have not participated in this thread. I am not so interested in subjective evidence. I do not "rely solely" (or even primarily) "on subjective evidence" for faith.)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024