How does one distinguish faith from delusion?

IMO, though, you can't just jump between epistemologies. If you think rational empiricism is the best way to get answers in one instance, why does it suddenly stop working in another? Is it because the answers given by rational empiricism do not satrusfy you, or go against what you want?I think it's very easy to hold epistemologies up against each other and determine which one works best. The way you do that is you use each epistemology to try and discern something about the world and then see if that viewpoint leads down a path to more accurate ideas and predicitons, or if it ends up giving you inaccurate answers. If an epistemology works only in areas where we can't be certain, then what makes that epistemology seem like a likely path to an accurate answer?In essence, I use rational empiricism because I see it work. Without it, the science and technology we use every day would not exist. When I come up against a question that rational empiricism can't answer, I make a guess that I like best, acknowledging that I'm possibily (and quite probably) either wrong, or merely making a subjective judgement and leave it at that. I in no way assume that the answer I have come to must be TRUE, merely that it works for me, though I'm willing to change that answer if I find compelling reasons to do so.

I disagree. If rational empiricism is the method you've chosen to view the objective world through, why would you change that just because rational empiricism gives you an unsatisfactory answer? If R.E. doesn't work, it either means the question is subjective in nature, which is a different thing entirely from what we're discussing, or the question itself is probably invalid. If you're talking about liking a picture, love, or anything of a subjective nature, then R.E. doesn't touch it, but it doesn't claim to, and if it's subjective, then delusion and faith don't apply either, as both imply some measure of objectivity. 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. So we've moved from the realm of objective truth to subjective truth and we've moved away from what R.E. claims to work on. A faith or belief posits something that objectively exists. A desit believes there is an objective deity in existence somewhere. 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. You've seen someone get better after having something done that was claimed to be "energy healing." For this to become a rational belief, however, it would require consistent results for many people and rate of success greater than a placebo effect would indicate. Seeing it once, twice, or even a hundred times when used on people who think it will help them is not an accurate way to see if it works. You run the risk of false positives, confirmation bias and self-deception on the part of the healee. If we're in a subjective realm, then sure, I use my feelings because that's what subjectivity covers. If we're talking about something that makes an objective claim for which there is no empirical evidence, I maintain skepticism, while accepting the possibility that some new evidence will turn up, but I don't jump to belief until it does.As an aside, I'm using rational empiricism to include empirically tested or observed phenomena and logic used to deduce other things which have not been observed, but should be true if the other assumptions are true. For example, it's a logical extrapolation tro believe that life exists on other planets based on what we know and assume, but I hold that possibility with a grain of salt and knowledge that I want it to be true and that this want may overshadow my skepticism at times. When it comes to actual extraterrestial visitations, I am much more skeptical, again because of what we think we know about the universe, it's physical laws, and the entirely subjective nature of any "evidence" provided by UFO believers.

Well, apparently, you don't seem to like it when our current empirical answers are "I don't know." The current empirical answer for "Is there a god?" likewise points to "Probably not, but we don't know for sure." You seem to assume this answer can't be right, or isn't right, and so look for another way of looking at the world that will give you a different answer. You're right, any one and his brother can perceive the world anyway they want. The kicker is, different ways of perceiving lead to different levels of success, however you want to define that. The way that has produced the most success is Rational Empiricism. If you disagree with that assesment, please explain how another way of perceiving the world has lead to more understanding, advancement and greater quality of life. Incorrect. Objective means true for everyone, whether they see it, accept it, or want it, or not. Subjective means true for one person and quite probably different for most or every other person. I certainly understand the appeals of solipsism, but to me, while it makes an interesting mental exercise, it quickly leads nowhere. If we assume that our minds are all that is there, that the external world is an illusion, then it would seem to lead to nothing mattering, and could, in a slippery slope kind of fallacy-way, lead to pathological or psychopathic tendencies.While I admit the possibility of a Matrix-like scenario, I am forced to live in the world I am presented with, whether it all exists on my mind or not, and assume that when other people interract with me, they really interract, and that there are things that are true independent of me. Again, this is the approach that has lead to the most advances and success in the world. Interestingly, I got INFJ as well. An interesting, but off-topic thing to consider is that people were claiming ghost or witch encounters, until about the 40s (I believe) when the term flying saucer was coined and alien visitation became a considered possibility. Quite quickly, people stopped claiming ghosts and witches influenced them and started claiming aliens and UFOs abducted them. It seems to me to be a mental construct that is looking for the current "accepted" way of expressing itself.