How does one distinguish faith from delusion?

The problem with this approach is that there are a near infinite number of concepts that are not contradicted by any evidence and which never can be contradicted by any evidence. Immaterial Unicorns, Ethereal Squirrels, extra-dimensional-aliens, magic fairies, spirits, undetectable toilet goblins.... Whatever.As you know the only way to seperate these entities into those that you consider "reasonable" and those that you consider "absurd" is to commit the logical fallacy of special pleading. Surely we don't need to go over this again? If he bases this claim on the idea that he was Napoleon in a previous life is that contradicted by any evidence? Is it delusional?

Personal preferences tell us nothing about reality external to the mind of the experiencee. Those who have faith generally do not limit themselves to saying that their object of faith exists only in their mind. The two are not comparable. If it relates to something that is supposedly non-empirical and materially undetectable how can it be anything else?How was it experienced at all if not by means of the material senses? A sixth sense? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

You are conflating the internal and the external. I am only applying empiricism to reality external to ones own mind. Your preferences and opinions do not exist as entities distinct, seperate and external to you. Should you cease to exist (or indeed never have existed) then these internal phenomenon will also indisputably cease to exist. The objects of religious faith are generally considered to exist external to, and independently from, the experiencee. The two are not comparable. I have tried meditation. The fact that you experience something internaly does not mean that you have experienced any aspect of external immaterial reality. How can you? Unless you are invoking a sixth sense of some sort?Also by citing "experiences" as reasons for belief are we now not straying away from faith and into "evidence"?RAZD has made it very very very clear to me elsewhere that he deeply resents any conflation between faith and evidence. So we should probably tread carefully and you should be very clear as to whether you are now claiming that there is "evidence" for the phenomenon in question.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Don't worry RAZ.Your ongoing refusal to tackle the problem of how any materially undetectable entity can be experienced tells me all I will ever need to know about the weakness of your position on the nature of evidence.AbE - It was LindLou that raised the whole issue of "experiences" in the context of a thread on faith and delusion. Not me. I have had day-dreams about the Yellow Ethereal Squirrel. Does that mean that the Yellow Ethereal Squirrel is evidenced?Stay HappyEdited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

The problem with the "no contradictory evidence" approach is that there are a near infinite array of unprovable irrefutable concepts. Immaterial Unicorns, ghosts, fairies, undetectable goblins that live in your toilet, ethereal squirrels, incorporeal iguanas and the usual host of immaterial gods and deities that theists and deists more commonly believe in on the basis of "faith".Do you accept all of these as reasonable possibilities? Or are you agnostic towards some and atheistic towards others? On what basis do you make your distinction? None are contradicted by any evidence after all. And that is your stated criteria for acceptance is it not? Because our knowledge of any reality external to ourselves is necessarily limited by our ability to perceive that external reality whilst internal experiences are limited only by our imagination.Do you not think we should attempt to differentiate between the two? Does this distinction between imagination and reality not lie at the very heart of what is delusional and what is not? I don't really claim to know anything for sure. This is not about certainty. This was about faith and is rapidly turning into a discussion about evidence. That is fine by me as long as we are both aware of that fact. The fact that "some people believe" or "some people feel" that internal experieces must relate to some aspect of external reality does not answer the question as to HOW this can possibly be the case? Conviction is not evidence.Are you advocating a sixth sense? How else can we possibly experience any aspect of reality that is not ultimately material and empirical in nature? How? That is the question I have asked of RAZD in similar related discussions. That is the question he has failed to address.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Er no.I don't have faith. I accept the philosophical possibility of such things existing. But given the highly evidenced human prediliction for inventing supposedly irrefutable concepts for reasons of explanation, comfort, higher purpose or whetever else, I think the default position has to rationally be that such things are far more likely the product of human invention.No faith involved. Only if you deny the very strong objective evidence in favour of humans having a strong tendancy to invent gods.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I can see that you are getting overwhelmed with responses here so I will keep this brief. Do you see a difference between presenting evidence in order to convince others and simply trying to convince someone that if they believe in something that inherently cannot be evidenced it will be somehow beneficial?Doesn't faith based thinking necessarily require the latter approach? No. Simply an honest distinction between what it is possible to consider evidenced (or even experienced) and what it is not.We only have material methods of sensory perception (unless you are claiming otherwise?). If it is claimed that we are experiencing materially undetectable phenomenon then it is perfectly reasonable (necessary even) to ask "How"?

There is no such thing as a vacuum of evidence.There is a great deal of objective evidence that tells us as verified fact that humans have a strong disposition to invent gods.

Not really. Have you read the OP? This thread is about our ability (or otherwise) to distinguish between faith and delusion.The clue is in the title...........

That is not my point. The question is on what basis you differentiate between concepts that are worthy of belief and those that are not? If "no contradictory evidence" is your sole stated criteria. Nonsensical by what criteria? Are all claims that are not contradicted by evidence equally "sensical" or are some "nonsensical"? You seem to be subtly changing your criteria from "not contradicted by evidence" to "sensible".......? But "sensible" by what/whose criteria/definition? If something can be materially investigated then it is not usually subject to faith. Lets cast any, admittedly strange, but nevertheless very materially detectable aspects of modern physics to one side for the purposes of this faith vs delusion discussion. If you want to talk quantum weirdness then I, and many others I suspect, will be happy to do that. But quantum mechanics is not derived from a faith in materially undetectable entities. Yep. You have caused quite a stir! Attacking atheist sensibilities tends to do that!! I have three main points/questions to help focus your attention:1) Is there a rational reason to consider any one immaterial undetectable entitity as more likely to exist than any other?2) How is it even possible that anyone has ever experienced any aspect of any immaterial reality (that might exist) unless we are invoking the existence of a form of sensory perception beyond our known material senses (i.e. a "sixth sense")?3) Is agnosticism or a degree of atheism the rational conclusion regarding any immaterial undetectable god concept cited by humans given that humanity has an indisputable and proven tendancy to invent such things?See you when you get back.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : Spelling

The question remains as to how it is even conceivably possible that the "transcendant" or immaterial has been experienced in any way shape or form? Is not the vast amount of objective evidence regarding the commonality of human psychology across cultures a more evidenced explanation for the common aspects of belief than invoking some sort of "sixth sense"?Is not denying objective evidence to maintain ones preconceived notions not an aspect of delusional behaviour.......? Is this not arguably what you are doing here by invoking the "transcendant" over the commonality of human psychology?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Er no. There is not an "Absence of evidence".There is a vast array of evidence to suggest that humans invent "irrefutable" gods to meet their very human needs.

Welcome to the brotherhood. Details of the next meet will be sent to you shortly. As will your sacrificail robes and a copy of "The God Delusion". Signed by high priest Dawkins himself. Always remember that life is meaningless and let nobody deter you from this path.Self-Righteous-Ass # 33721

It depends whether or not he is undergoing a delusion.Just to bring things back on topic.

Are you a believer in all irrefutable concepts? Agnostic (i.e. neutral)? Or atheistic? The Immaterial Pink Unicorn? The Ethereal Giant Squirrel? Undetectable toilet goblins? On what basis do you differentiate between different entities that are inherently irrefutable? Or do you suggest that we accept all such concepts equally? Er no. I simply suggest that, given the highly evidenced fact that humans invent gods, we should treat any otherwise unevidenced human claim that gods exist as false until demonstrated otherwise.If someone has a 100% record of lying do you assume that they are telling the truth? Or do you take the healthy but cynical attitude that they are lying until it is demonstrated otherwise?