How does one distinguish faith from delusion?

quote:

---

Why will none of you describe, in detail, the nature of these subjective experiences that you include as evidence and that you insist counteract the claim that the Immaterial Pink Unicorn is as evidenced as any other immaterial deity?

---

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).

quote:

---

If we are to distinguish religious faith from delusion, as is the topic of this thread, then we need to analyse the evidence upon which this "faith" is founded and determine whether or not it leads to conclusions that are in any way superior to guessing.

---

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.

quote:

---

I could not give an ethereal squirrels arse about specific beliefs. I want to know what forms of immaterial evidence you are including and what forms of immaterial evidence you are excluding.

​

What exactly constitutes "subjective evidence" as applied to immaterial entities. Be incredibly specific. Or don't bother replying as I am sick of your games.

---

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:

---

See Challenge (Message 160)

---

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.

quote:

---

The only thing I can think of is that religious faith is commonly less powerful than delusions. People can 'turn it down' or even 'off' a lot more readily than delusions can be

---

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.

quote:

---

Perhaps because religious faiths are not delusions, but worldviews, based on concepts that are different from those of people outside the faith/s. Beliefs can be wrong without being delusional, as they can be based on ignorance or lack of information. Beliefs can also be different from those of other people without being delusional - they can be logical opinions not contradicted by any known (to the people) facts.

---

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.

quote:

---

am both intrigued and confused by, what seems, a conflation between evidence and faith in the non-atheist participants in this thread. ...
...
But you guys seem intent on the idea that faith in immaterial beings is not irrational, is not illogical and that any comparison with "absurd" ideas like the Immaterial Pink Unicorn is insulting and unwarranted because there is in fact some form of "evidence" that I (and other atheists) just will not admit. BUT which justifies such faith and which I should recognise at least to the point of agnosticism but for my "world view" bias.

​

I promise to not even reply to your answer to this post or even mention it again if you don't want me to. It is not a trick. I just want to understand how faith and evidence are related (or not) in your mind.

---

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.

quote:

---

If you're talking about subjective aspects of life, then you're right, R.E. doesn't apply, but neither does faith or delusion. DO I think there is an accurate answer to "Do I love my girlfriend?" Yes. Is it a truth for everyone? No.

---

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:

---

A Christian believes there is a specific God and his son/clone named Jesus objectively existing in a heavenly realm. These are beliefs that make objective claims and can be investigated with R.E.

---

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.

quote:

---

I didn't say you were guessing. I said your conclusions were no more reliable than guesses. Thus calling such things "evidence" is an abuse of the term. The commonality of human psychology is a very very evidenced explanation for such things. Evidenced in such a way as to be far superior to guessing.

​

quote:

---

But because the explaination seem to be the same as a guess to you does not mean that we are simply guessing.

---

Look let me make this clear. I DO NOT THINK YOU ARE RANDOMLY GUESSING. However you are indisputably treating subjective reasons for belief that are no more reliable than simply guessing as evidence.

​

You are letting your personal conviction persuade you that you have evidence when in fact you have subjective reasons.

---

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.

quote:

---

quote:

---

3) Religious faith generally claims objective as well as subjective evidence. Reducing religious faith to the merely subjective is incorrect.

---

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?

---

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:

---

Subjective immaterial evidence and it's equivalence to guessing. Lets concentrate on that first.

---

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: 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.

quote:

---

Kbertsche, for the purpose of this thread I would like to assume we are only talking about subjective evidence. Many people on this board and in the real world rely solely on subjective evidence and I believe if the objective evidence can be firmly disproved, then its best to have a thread prepared for when people start falling back on faith. People seem to use it as a debate stopper. "Oh, all my arguments for a young earth have been disproven, well I still have my faith that there is a young earth"

---

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.)