How does one distinguish faith from delusion?

Hi Straggler,

quote:

---

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?

---

This is an interesting question. Atheists often ask it: if you allow yourself to subscribe to one faith, even a little bit, then doesn't that open the door to you believing all sorts of nonsense? The answer of course is no, because pink unicorns and the flying spaghetti monster are strawmen to make spiritual beliefs seem silly. We human beings can differentiate pretty easily between these examples.Unfortunately the above statement is not true for everybody, and there are some people who are very gullible, easily led, or unfortunately just not very bright. The internet is full of some utterly nonsensical claims. We use empiricism where it's applicable, to try to get at the truth. Sometimes we also have to draw on our wisdom and experience, or those of others. This seems like a pretty good combo approach to me.

quote:

---

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?

---

Well yes we need to differentiate between the two, but I think the line is blurrier than we tend to imagine. There's the phenomenon of quantum entanglement. There are various ESP studies I know of which I won't go into here. I don't believe any of this is delusional. We run the risk of dismissing something very interesting by using that "delusional" label.

quote:

---

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?

---

Don't you think it's possible to accept that something happens, without knowing why or how it happens?I don't claim to understand the mechanism, other than to go back to my previously stated belief, that all is one. I do know that the very heart of matter, the constituent of quarks and other particles that are the smallest of the small, can be described as frozen energy. If everything in its essence is energy, then all is one. I'm not sure how science could study this further but I'd watch for discoveries in quantum physics.

quote:

---

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.

---

I suppose the distinction between atheism and agnosticism is something that people have to be honest with themselves about. I've heard atheists pay lip service to a vague "possibility" that they are wrong, though they quickly dismiss this as being "highly unlikely." It's like creationists claiming, "I love science. But . . . " If you truly think that it's unlikely that the transcendent exists, but you are willing to take on any kind of evidence to the contrary (not necessarily empirical), then you are probably an agnostic. I was one for a long time, but I ended up changing how I personally evaluate some of the evidence.

quote:

---

"If anything could be defined as being close to the absence of faith, I think it would have to be agnosticism."

​

Only if you deny the very strong objective evidence in favour of humans having a strong tendancy to invent gods.

---

Sorry, I don't understand how your answer addresses the quotation from me. Could you elucidate?This seems to have become a busy thread. In the past I've had a tendency to try to answer everything as quickly as possible, which isn't conducive to well written posts. I'm going to have to give this a little break and think on it.

Ah, a few shorter posts here. That's OK.

quote:

---

There is a great deal of objective evidence that tells us as verified fact that humans have a strong disposition to invent gods.

---

Maybe that's telling us something, though I think you and I would come to different conclusions. Mine is that the transcendent exists, and the gods that people have invented are their attempts to understand it. Hinduism accepts figures from other religions with a remarkable degree of tolerance because their own religion contains many avatars. They are all incarnations of Brahman, the transcendent. People have a timeless propensity to personify abstract concepts.I hope my previous post satisfactorily addresses some of your other questions?

Hi Straggler,In Message 32 I stated:

quote:

---

I believe there is a God and I must be judged one day by Him.

​

You do not believe there is a God and you must be judged one day by Him.

---

Stile corrected me in Message 40 telling me he did not believe in the Christian God of the Bible.Well that is the one I believe in.If Stile stands before that God to be judged will Stile know He exists? yes/noGod Bless,

Here is an even better idea.Stay on topic.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Um. Yes, I suppose you did. In the most irrelevent manner possible.Your method involves dying. I was kind of assuming that we were talking about ways to know the validity of claims about this life we live in while we are alive.I hope it is obvious that gaining verifiable information after we're dead about a claim we are meant to take action upon while we are alive is rather useless.Sorry for any confusion.Please, if you have any relevent ideas, they would be greatly appreciated.

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.

Hi Stile,Sorry to dissapoint you. But if you could know by evidence today there would be no such thing as faith.And this discussion would be impossible.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

No, we should not equate closed-mindedness with delusion.However, if some closed-minded people also happen to adamantly believe their faith is an accurate description of reality, and they insist that others accept this as truth with no objective reason to do so, then they are also delusional.Perhaps we should make sure we agree with the definitions before progressing to far.Step 1Delusional:
1 - The state of believing in a concept for which there are known, verifiable, objective facts that show the concept to be false. (ie - believing that EvCforum.net is a porn site).
2 - The state of insisting that a personal belief *must* be taken as absolute truth by others; while this personal belief has no known, verifiable, objective facts that show the concept to be correct. (ie - insisting that EvCforum.net will inevitably become a porn site)
-Definition 2 should not be confused with people who simply hold internal, individual beliefs to be true while there remains zero known, verifiable, objective facts. Such people are not detectably delusional, just "passionately hopeful." (ie - personally "knowing" that EvCforum.net will inevitably become a porn site as long as no one can obtain information from the future to show otherwise) Such an example is not delusional as long one refrains from professing absolute knowledge about such a future.Do you agree with this definition? Even if you do agree, it will be assumed that you only agree provisionally and we can discuss modifications at any time.Please answer this question about definitions before moving forward in your reply.Step 2A person's faith has no known, verifiable, objectively factual basis.
(If there is a known, verifiable, objectively factual basis, then it is "known" or "understood" and not "taken on faith.")Do you agree?Step 3According to defintion 2 of being delusional:A person who insists that their faith is "true" with no known, verifiable, objective factual basis, is therefore delusional.Do you agree?Step 4There is no known, verifiable, objective factual basis for the Christian religion (including the Roman Catholic variety).Do you agree?Step 5Therefore, all Christians (including Roman Catholics) are delusional if they profess their religion as "the truth" to other people.Do you agree?Please specify where you stop agreeing, and why.

Exactly. The off-topic discussion of "why a God grants us reasoning powers yet requires us to forego their use and accept His existence on faith while also having a penalty tied to the 'decision'" not withstanding (any futher discussion should start here: Proposed New Topics):Now, do you agree that insisting something is true while there is absolutely no known, verifiable, objective facts to base your reasoning on... is a description of being delusional?
That is: If I insist that people must accept that I am, indeed, the King of 5 planets that have yet to be discovered... am I being delusional?If you do not agree that this is a definition of delusional, why not?If so, we can then interchange the word "faith" from your statement with "delusions" to have an equivalent phrase:

quote:

---

But if you could know by evidence today there would be no such thing as delusions (strictly as defined above).

---

So, since the terms are interchangably equivalent, how can we identify a difference between a delusion and faith?Perhaps identifying a difference is so difficult because there actually is no difference.

Thanks for the exchange ...
Hope all is well ... You know how.I have read many of your posts - you are not an idiot. The thing is, an atheist does not display themselves as 'not believing in something'.That may be an agnostic - one who has yet to purport a stance either way, due to a lack of convincing evidence to suit their individual perception of life.Atheists have employed the absence of evidence, and established it as concrete perception; the paradigm then rests upon the premise of this absence.The movement then becomes as candid as any other zealot's - see smooth operator and the geocentric uprising for more complete details .... There is the sense that atheism is not so much a 'lack of faith', but rather an exclusive faith upholding limitations defined within its default position.When the variant constructs are breached, sectarianism occurs.Consider, there is much theology - or theory, alleged to be ‘based on the Bible', but - as we both know, in actual practice it is based on selective quotations.This, of course, obviously necessitates the requirement of selective nullification. It is this dynamic that, imho, best explains why there are hundreds of denominations and divisions in what is refered to as 'the church' - the Bible is not consistent and this leads to inconsistent selection and differences in opinion concerning what should and should not be nullified, resulting in schisms and sectarianism.Likewise, variant perceptions of life itself are not always consistent, and so, this has lead to inconsistent selection and differences in opinion concerning what should and should not be nullified as reality itself, resulting in schisms and sectarianism forming a society with definitively pluralistic world views.This dynamic is in no way spared on the variant traditions associated within atheism.Now, more to the point here, lets consider what atheism is and how is it defined ...

quote:

---

The more common understanding of atheism among atheists is not believing in any gods.

---

Link - atheism.about.comThis is the primary limitation implicated in an atheistic world belief system. This could also be considered as the theological premise, as in Buddhism, etc..Continuing from that source ...

quote:

---

No claims or denials are made - an atheist is a person who is not a theist.

---

Here we seem to lean into agnostic territories, but then again, they are often confused amongst each other, no? However, this is not the brand of atheism always found at EvC, being a debate forum and all, or the sect traditionally applauded and held in high regard amongst followers on YouTube - lolA little further & we get to the meat of this ...

quote:

---

Sometimes this broader understanding is called weak or implicit atheism.

---

So then, through selectively nullifying variant perceptions, we now have a sectarian division of atheist's which could be commonly referred to as practitioners within the 'weak atheism' movement or practitioners within the 'implicit atheism' movement.

quote:

---

There is also a narrower sort of atheism, sometimes called strong or explicit atheism. Here, the atheist explicitly denies the existence of any gods - making a strong claim which will deserve support at some point.

---

Conversely, through this type of schism, we are also confronted by another sectarian division of atheist's which could be commonly referred to as practitioners within the 'strong atheism' movement or practitioners within the 'explicit atheism' movement. These are those who are ready for battle.A dynamic presenting itself is the use of implicit and explicit within these variant atheistic belief systems.As well, we find the terms weak and strong, with their hierarchical overtones ringing as only church bells do.As far as one can tell, these dogmatic implications naturally wreak of religious orthodoxy.Paul - the ToRaH abiding Pharisee - is depicted informing his followers that 'faith is the substance of things hoped for' and 'the evidence of things not seen'.Finally, these inconsistencies implicate faith. They do not necessarilly validate her though. Reasonably, the evidence recovered in an outcome can do that. This is not meant to deconstruct your definition of faith, and so - what is faith that becomes validated by evidence previously unavailable or unrecognized?So then, atheism should be believing in something with evidence. Yet, it is common to find atheists who take a positive stance on paranormal phenomena.It is explained with the same sort of philosophical meanderings as all else without evidence considered definitive by the majority.While seemingly untenable and unsupported explanations which postulate ephemeral, but causal, connections between events may often appear to take on more appeal than well-supported statistical explanations which do not provide the same comfort or feelings of connectedness, suggesting atheists lack faith is more of a statement of your own personal theology.That is whether one, as an atheist, believes in ghosts and goblins or otherwise though, and so, nothing personal. Atheists follow those they trust - their gurus', and the general movement of their religious belief system.Science and atheism are not interchangeable, much less longstanding kinsman.Religion follows orthodoxy.People follow the evidence.One Love

---

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

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.

I rarely read your posts because they are very long winded. This is not to say that I discount what you say, just that I find your style difficult to read.Here are a couple responses. I venture to guess most atheist would say that there is no reason to believe in a god because there is no evidence. Provide evidence and I am sure many would reconsider their views.Which gods are you agnostic to? Which gods are you atheist to? I have never understood how an atheist could believe in the paranormal. Then again this means actually nothing. What people that claim to be atheist believe means nothing to the definition of atheist. In the same vein one could say the same about anyone that has beliefs that go counter to what they claim to believe. I do not think that people that believe in the paranormal are atheists. They obviously believe in something supernatural, this in my book would discount them from being atheists. Oh please!! Can you make a more generalized, unsubstantiated statement than this? Do I read atheistic and non-christian writers? I sure do. I Have read Dawkins, Harris, Doherty and currently I am reading "The Rejection of Pascal's Wager", by Paul Tobin(doesn't strike me as an atheist). They are not my guru's. They are people that write about things I have an interest in. Do I agree with everything they say? Not at all.I find your comment laughable.Atheism does not have a religious belief system. If it does no one has contacted me. Do you know where they meet? I bet they are a bunch of self righteous asses. Who here has said they were?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

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.