Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How does one distinguish faith from delusion?
themasterdebator
Inactive Member


Message 211 of 279 (519966)
08-18-2009 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Kitsune
08-17-2009 7:05 PM


Re: Evasion - As Expected
Linda, if you have answered his question, I do not see it either. All I see is you evading Stragglers repeated request for a specific criteria for subjective evidence. You say there is subjective evidence separating delusion and faith but are not willing to provide a rigorous specific criteria separating the two. If you feel we are missing it, could you provide some examples? It would be nice to see examples of faith versus delusion with a clearly spelled out difference between the two. Common sense and "wisdom" are not clear differences. Something more specific than that is needed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Kitsune, posted 08-17-2009 7:05 PM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Kitsune, posted 08-19-2009 5:07 AM themasterdebator has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 212 of 279 (519968)
08-18-2009 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by Kitsune
08-18-2009 12:40 PM


Re: Delusions
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.
Great so the transcendent is loving - but what about other entities? Human entities calling themselves YHWH who are skilled illusionists who might have convinced Abraham they were a god and duped him into almost killing his son. Or what about a demonic or otherwise malevolent spirits called YHWH? How are you ruling them out?
Of course, it might not have happened at all - but it is an example that is basically familiar to us all.
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.
Actually, because they are cultural norms - our society almost universally does not dismiss them as delusions. They call them beliefs, faiths, religions. As long as those beliefs don't challenge our social conventions we tolerate them. When they do - we are more likely to call them delusions (as you did with Abraham).
And yes - we can learn from them. We can learn a great deal about what it is to be human by studying what humans believe, by studying the way the brain works - what shortcuts it makes and how they can be exploited intentionally or in a passive sense such as cultural reinforcement.
The judgment of delusion is subjective and so we need to employ criteria like the ones I outlined in my last post.
All statements about the health (mental or physical) of a person have a subjective element...there are criteria in place. If you think your criteria is better - then you need to make your case, provide evidence, and maybe it will be employed. Right now, the evidence and the argument is largely in favour of what is in place now (though as always, the mental health professionals are crying out for more resources so they can actually enact their 'ideal world' solution).
Maybe the dividing line between delusion and spiritual experience can be blurrier than we realise.
Maybe, or maybe not. Maybe spiritual experiences are delusions, albeit mostly benign and often euphoric rather than malevolent and fearful. Maybe we just call 'positive feeling delusions' spiritual experiences and 'negative feeling delusions' delusions.
Why not let them think about it and see where it leads, as long as it's doing no harm to anyone?
I'm not stopping them. If they want to garner my opinion, they can have it.
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.
Empiricism can explain normative ethics rather well - they are behavioural traits of certain animals (not just humans), that govern social interaction. It is not however, a method can be used exclusively to derive normative ethics.
you think that declaring somebody to be suffering significantly mentally ill is something done lightly?
In our society, yes...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.
"Most of us", isn't to whom I was referring. I was referring to psychologists. And the experiencer's view is important - taking into account that they may be mentally ill. If a person wants to keep their voices and says 'I deserve it' that is a mental illness, and if possible that person should be helped.
Oliver Sacks tells a story of an elderly woman who had contracted Syphilis, which left her feeling friskier and livelier. She opted out of being treated despite having a 'mental illness'.
Anyway - as the writer of the article notes, not all voice hearing episodes are the result of mental illness. They are, by definition, auditory hallucinations, but they don't always merit treatment. You could have an underlying condition though, and it might be a good idea to seek the advice of a medical professional.
If such a benign or helpful thing happened to me I would never consult a psychiatrist for fear of being labelled schizophrenic and drugged.
This is probably unwise. But it's your life. I'd rather make sure I wasn't having simple partial seizures or a brain tumour or something else since approximately 10%1 of people who start displaying psychiatric problems and seek help for them find that there is an underlying medical condition behind them.
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.
Of course it can. One uses empiricism to determine that they said they believed they talked to Jesus. You use empiricism and rationalism to determine that they likely did have a conversation. You use empiricism to determine if there is any mental illness or medical condition that might have caused an hallucination. You use empiricism to determine, given the evidence above, and the reports of the patient and their stated desires what the best course of action is: treatment or not. If there is no mental illness, or medical condition as you stipulated - then no treatment is required as long as the patient is not distressed by the experience.
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.
Those aren't epistemologies, they are mostly fields of study - many of which are empirical in nature (it could be argued that they all are, but let's not go there for now!). Experiential and anecdotal are both empirical avenues of knowledge. Instinctive is an interesting one - but what do you do if someone's instincts are running counter to yours. It maybe that they have a different experiential background. How do you determine whose instinct leads to truth? How can you tell that instincts are the path to truth in one instance, but empiricism is better in another?
What you need to do, is to explain the criteria of truth of some other epistemology and then explain how these criteria can be employed to reliably do better to determine if someone is delusional or experiencing temporary hallucinations or actually having a geniune spiritual experience.
What do you suggest? Intuition? But whose intuition if there are conflicting intuitions? Majority opinion? Where whatever most people think, is the truth. If most people think Jesus had a religious experience then he did? Tradition - if it has become traditional it has stood the 'test of time' and is therefore true, or contains a truth or something?
What are you actually proposing? That is the topic at heart, after all.
We know what happens to people who claim they are Jesus Christ. He'd have to do some serious miracle-working to save himself.
Not to worry, he pulled it off last time very successfully.
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.
I guess you don't have a better methodology to present.
. 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?
Ah - so you are defining god so as to not include "the collective consciousness of the praying people". Well one possibility is to have some people pray for bad things to happen...if something bad doesn't happen we might conclude that there is some mechanism that makes good things happen and filters out bad thoughts. That mechanism could be named 'god'. Of course, if you define a god as being a person of some kind then you haven't proven that yet.
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.
Do you have a non empirical methodology that you can describe that can make you more sure?
That's getting on toward the opposite of what I was saying.
I know - but it is amusing that you chose an example that we agree on.
I believe in meridians and energy healing. Eastern medicine has believed in these things for thousands of years.
Is this confirmation that you use Tradition as a criterion of truth?
I do not believe this makes me deluded.
Maybe not - but if you believed you could see chakras and you had the power of healing then you are certainly getting closer to delusion. Did I ever tell you that shortly after my 'episode' I became convinced I could see auras and chakras and that I had been given the gift of healing from my spirit guide (who was called Danielle (God is my judge, a subconscious connection maybe?)) who also granted me the gift of dispersing clouds with my mind. I am frankly unsure how to categorize that part of my life, was I actually delusional or had I just bought massively into a pseudo-eastern new age bullcrap? To be honest I don't know, and there is no longer any reliable evidence. Empiricism can't help here but to assign probabilities.
These are long posts, and I lost the first response I typed to you. I am exhausted LOL.
That is really frustrating when that happens


1Physical Illness Presenting as Psychiatric Disease
A study of 658 consecutive psychiatric outpatients receiving careful medical and biochemical evaluation, defined an incidence of medical disorders productive of psychiatric symptoms in 9.1% of cases.
Edited by Modulous, : copy paste went mad

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Kitsune, posted 08-18-2009 12:40 PM Kitsune has not replied

themasterdebator
Inactive Member


Message 213 of 279 (519969)
08-18-2009 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by Kitsune
08-18-2009 1:35 PM


Re: Guessing
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.
I would assume by guessing he means arbitrarily picking an answer on a specific subject matter. The at what is open for you to pick an instance you find that faith has provided a more accurate answer than random guessing. For instance, if one was claiming to recieve visions of if a coin will flip heads or tails. If they are beating 50 percent right then the visions they receive are superior to guessing. You can take any subjective evidence that has any use in the real world and perform a similar test.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Kitsune, posted 08-18-2009 1:35 PM Kitsune has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 214 of 279 (519971)
08-18-2009 7:18 PM


Moderator Comment
Please see Message 140.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 215 of 279 (519979)
08-18-2009 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by kbertsche
08-18-2009 12:27 AM


Re: Delusions and Faith: Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc?
Hi kbertsche, another busy day ...
Perhaps we could say that a "religious faith experience" is more cohesive and has more context than a "delusional experience."
I think that is an assumption on your part, that I am not willing to make. One has to question which is providing the context for what.
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.
I'm afraid that's the cognitive bias I warned you about.
The religious experience is consistent with the worldview of the religion.
Or it is interpreted to be consistent with the worldview. One can compare many religious experiences from all kinds of faiths, and you will see two things:
  • the experiences are similar, even occur under similar circumstances, and
  • they are all interpreted as being consistent with the persons worldview.
As I said in Message 135:
quote:
The most important moments in science are marked with two exclamations:
(1) "... that's curious ..." and
(2) "eureka!"
...
The important thing, whether the experiences\concepts involve personal experiences, or testable experiences\concepts or whatever other ways you want to attempt to categorize, define, parse, and segregate evidence, is that it is the unusual, the unexpected, the unexplained, the contrary to one's world view experiences\concepts that are (or should be) of interest.
(underline for emphasis)
In this way we know we are avoiding confirmation bias and may even be embracing cognitive dissonance as a signal of possible changes to thinking -- the open minded skeptic approach again -- allowing new ideas to come in to play.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by kbertsche, posted 08-18-2009 12:27 AM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 216 of 279 (519983)
08-18-2009 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by Straggler
08-18-2009 1:42 PM


Re: We Are ALL Internally Contradictory In one Way Or Another
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Straggler, posted 08-18-2009 1:42 PM Straggler has not replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 217 of 279 (519984)
08-18-2009 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by Perdition
08-18-2009 6:27 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Perdition, posted 08-18-2009 6:27 PM Perdition has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by themasterdebator, posted 08-18-2009 10:40 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied
 Message 224 by Straggler, posted 08-19-2009 12:53 AM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

themasterdebator
Inactive Member


Message 218 of 279 (519988)
08-18-2009 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by kbertsche
08-18-2009 9:54 PM


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?
Well, why not? I think their is a misunderstanding between value statements and unscientific ones. You could test if he loves his girl friend. Study their interactions, watch body temperature, body language, vocal tones and hormone counts. You could put him through a lie detector test and even put him in situations where his love was tested. While you can't quantify the amount of love he has for her, you could certainly test if he loves her. I really think both of you are wrong because it is certainly possible to test if he loves his girl friend. Honestly, I cannot think of something science is unequipped to test that some other method would do a better job with.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Deleted subtitle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by kbertsche, posted 08-18-2009 9:54 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 219 of 279 (519989)
08-18-2009 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by Kitsune
08-18-2009 6:01 PM


It's because I do not see empiricism applying in every situation; at which time, you use another epistemology. In Message 140 I wrote a list of questions that I believe empiricism cannot answer, and asked the empiricist I was speaking with to propose how he would hypothesise and then test his hypotheses in regard to those questions.
Hey, LindaLou, I have noticed that, as you observed, no one has answered your five questions in specific terms. I hope to rectify that situation because Empiricism can indeed answer these questions and, I submit, any and all other questions dealing with the Universe.
There are only two types of answers that can be given to any question we may have of the Universe or our existence (role) within it. The first is most common and can be succinctly put as, We do not know ... yet. All other answers take the one form of, Our present evidence indicates that ...
1. Is there a god?
Actually there are thousands of beings, spirits and objects to which this appellation has been applied. We have very strong evidence detailing the evolution of such things from the minds of men (see Jared Diamond, Joseph Campbell, Richard Dawkins, Robert Wright, David Sloan Wilson, etc.) via myth and legend. Our present evidence indicates that such entities are evolved from men’s minds with longevity attributable to acculturation but do not, in fact, exist in our Universe.
2. Is there a purpose to our existence; and if so, what is it?
Our present evidence indicates that our purpose for existing is to survive long enough to procreate. All available evidence from biological evolution points in this direction. There appears to be no evidence, but incredulity and wishful thinking, that any other purpose exists. Purpose as a concept in itself did not exist until the early homo varieties and, as our present evidence indicates, it has no role in this Universe.
3. Is there any such thing as free will?
In the Newtonian/Einsteinian Deterministic Universe where every particle and every vector of force might be known the answer was doubtful. In our Quantum/Uncertain Universe, however, our present evidence indicates the answer may be within strict constraints. Even this is arguable given the sever restraints of bio-chemistry, the restraining psychology of acculturation and individual past experience, and the complex interplay of these within an ever changing social and physical environment.
You may think you have the free will to choose among pizza, chef salad or a Reuben for dinner tonight but the ultimate decision will be made by your physical need, competing psychological stresses (your friend’s tale about having that specific mix on his pizza appealed to you, but you had pizza a few nights ago, mixed with, the boss kicked my ass today and I just don’t feel like going all the way to that NY-style deli) and the ease of availability of each between office and home. The interplay of all forces involved is so hopelessly complex that we may feel, on the surface, that the decision is ours to make in our own time, but, is it really?
Ultimately, our answer today must be that we do not know ... yet.
4. Does Ultimate Truth exist? And if so, can we know its nature? And if so, what is it?
The definition of Ultimate Truth differs from region to region, person to person. You ask can we know its nature? How can we determine anything of value from such a variable subjective construct?
To me, and this is personal opinion only, the only (take the caps off) ultimate trvths are observable, verifiable facts (evidence), a preponderance of which may give us some insight into the operations of the Universe and only tentatively at that pending discovery of further evidence.
Since the subject is ill-defined any answer is indeterminate. So, we do not know ... yet.
5. Am I in love? (asking oneself)
Love is likewise a variable subjective construct. Again, our present evidence indicates that this subjective emotion is an amalgam of bio-chemistry, acculturation and personal experience. One such construct is a child’s love for a parent, based on the provision and protection provided by the parent. I could become verbose about the sexual basis of another such construct, but will avoid the opportunity since this is a family forum. The evolutionary advantages to the tribe of altruism are well documented and foster yet a third construct.
Depending upon the specifics of which construct is being considered the answer will be either evidence-based (I have these symptoms, thoughts, experiences) or unknown at present.
-----------------------------------------------------------
We now come up against the (my kind of) ultimate trvth that most people do not like these answers. They are factual, but they are also, cold, impersonal, hard and clinical. They lack the emotional warm and fuzzies humans crave. There is no hootspa.
Where this leads them is to adopt some other philosophy that will yield the precise warm and fuzzy answers for which the person is looking. All the other philosophies you listed are emotional-based, faith-based, subjective constructs built for this one comforting purpose.
The problem with this is that every person on this planet (and remember, by definition, half the people on this planet have less than average intelligence) can construct any set of paradigms to explain anything to their own emotional satisfaction. This is faith. Your contention that since The Empirical cannot answer these questions in what some may consider a satisfactory way thus opening these other paradigms to legitimate consideration is falling into the trap of emotional faith-based delusion.
Yet, there is this One Way ... The Only Way ... to pursue the objective reality that is our Universe: cold, hard, impersonal, clinical ... a preponderance of the facts, please ma’am, just the facts.
And just to tie this in to the present thread:
Nothing in this universe that is subject to the whims and fancies of human emotion, nothing of faith, no construct of the mind of man absent observable, verifiable phenomena, no property or condition of a personal experience sans universal verification, can in any way be called fact. Subjective fact is an oxymoron that only exists in delusion.
Or I may be wrong.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Deleted subtitle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Kitsune, posted 08-18-2009 6:01 PM Kitsune has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 220 of 279 (519995)
08-18-2009 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Modulous
08-18-2009 7:28 AM


Re: Delusions and Faith: Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc?
Hi Modulus,
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."
Yes, that would be it - I thought I looked through the other messages too, oh well.
The point is that when you bring up situations where you have a deluded person acting on their delusions, it is not necessarily due to their faith - that can just be part of the adaptation of the delusions to fit into the person's world view, the person's understanding of reality.
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.
Again, what you have here is a spectrum of people with beliefs, some of which may have delusions and some which may not, ie some have (+faith+delusion) and some have (+faith-delusion).
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?
Is it possible to distinguish between someone with delusions and someone with delusions who also has faith and someone who has faith and no delusions?
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 Charles Manson ("Squeaky" Fromme was just released from prison), for a rather more morbid example of delusional behavior, but one that did not involve faith.
I'm not making a concrete claim here - just pointing out that your definition might result in overlooking something.
Always a possibility, however it also points out many cases where there is a difference between faith and delusions.
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?
Which comes back to the question of distinguishing those with +faith+delusion from those with +faith-delusion, rather than lumping all +faith into the +delusion category.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Modulous, posted 08-18-2009 7:28 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by themasterdebator, posted 08-18-2009 11:42 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 232 by Modulous, posted 08-19-2009 7:13 AM RAZD has replied

themasterdebator
Inactive Member


Message 221 of 279 (519998)
08-18-2009 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by RAZD
08-18-2009 11:28 PM


Re: Delusions and Faith: Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc?
Which comes back to the question of distinguishing those with +faith+delusion from those with +faith-delusion, rather than lumping all +faith into the +delusion category.
Is there really is a distinction between the two? How do you differentiate between a religious delusion and faith? As Modulus said earlier, he seriously thought he was talking to angels. Is that faith but not delusion?
Other than the religious aspect, how would it be different if he thought he was talking to bunnies or Aristotle? It just seems to me that religion is given this special distinction from other ideas.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by RAZD, posted 08-18-2009 11:28 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 222 of 279 (520000)
08-18-2009 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by Kitsune
08-18-2009 1:35 PM


Re: Guessing
Straggler writes:
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.
I will. In the specific context of this thread I mean guessing as to whether the object(s) of religious faith actually exist or not.
Whatever the context a claim of "evidence" requires that it can be demonstrated that conclusions that are superior to just guessing can be obtained.
If you cannot then you are just deluding yourself that whatever ambiguous and undefined forms of non-empirical evidence we are talking about here are actually any form of evidence at all.
Edited by Straggler, : Spelling
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Kitsune, posted 08-18-2009 1:35 PM Kitsune has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-19-2009 10:47 AM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 223 of 279 (520003)
08-19-2009 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by Kitsune
08-18-2009 6:01 PM


Answers
LL writes:
In Message 140 I wrote a list of questions that I believe empiricism cannot answer, and asked the empiricist I was speaking with to propose how he would hypothesise and then test his hypotheses in regard to those questions.
Oh go on then. I'll answer your questions in the forlorn hope that you will explain to me how your "evidence" is not just a form of deluded and biased guessing as per Message 222. I still dispute that I am an "empiricist" in the sense that you are suggesting though. I guess we'll see....
Is there a god?
Probably not. If you want a more detailed answer than that you will have to define "god" more thoroughly.
Is there a purpose to our existence; and if so, what is it?
That is up to you to decide for yourself. Some might argue that such things as reproduction etc. provide a "purpose" but I don't think that is what you meant and it is not what I would mean either. If you think your life has purpose then it does. This is not evidenced or even necessarily rational. It is an internal subjective judgement.
Is there any such thing as free will?
That is a question worthy of much more time than this and much more expertise than I will ever have. It feels like I have a degree of free-will. But the honest answer is that I don't know and, except in an intellectually curious sort of way, I am not sure that I care.
Does Ultimate Truth exist? And if so, can we know its nature? And if so, what is it?
I have no idea what is meant by "Ultimate Truth". We can have a higher degree of confidence in of some conclusions, and some forms of evidence, than others. There are forms of evidence that reliably and demonstrably lead to conclusions that are superior to mere guesses. And there are some reasons for belief that are no better than random guesses in terms of reliability. But beyond that I am not sure what you are asking here.
Am I in love? (asking oneself)
I don't claim that my internal emotional state is necessarily evidenced or even necessarily rational. Nor is it particularly any of anyone elses business unless I choose to make it so.
So will you now tell me how your evidence is superior to guessing? Message 222
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Kitsune, posted 08-18-2009 6:01 PM Kitsune has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 224 of 279 (520008)
08-19-2009 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by kbertsche
08-18-2009 9:54 PM


Love
Perdition writes:
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?
If you genuinely believe that you are in love then you are in love. Even if the girlfriend in question is a figment of your imagination. Your emotional state regarding her is internal and can be "true" independently of any external reality.
However simply believing that trees are made of marzipan, or that gods exist or any other "truth" about shared objective external reality does not make it so.
It's a shame I know. My imaginary girlfriend was hot. But such is life.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by kbertsche, posted 08-18-2009 9:54 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 225 of 279 (520023)
08-19-2009 4:30 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by Rahvin
08-18-2009 5:55 PM


The First Rule of Deism Is...
LindaLou is just leading us off-course with a gigantic red herring.
The first rule of deism is, you do not talk about deities.
If you want to stay on speaking terms with deists I also suggest you avoid the term "immaterial".
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Rahvin, posted 08-18-2009 5:55 PM Rahvin has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024