I'm not looking at the 1-7 scale here but I was intrigued by Iano's questions. Here's my take on it.
iano:
Can one henceforth say "I know God exists" without:
a) that being an illogical thing to say?
You are not talking about knowledge--a conviction, really--that follows mainly from reason. Reason may play a part. If you allow for the existence of other kinds of 'knowing' it becomes possible to say 'God exists' in a valid way.
The psychologist Carl Jung developed a useful model for this. He said we 'know' things through four cognitive functions:
- reason
- sensation
- emotion
- intuition
Logic is the tool of reason. The other functions don't use it. (More accurately: they possess their own logic. There is a kind of 'emotional logic' that works without being rational.)
It is perfectly rational to believe in miracles, for example. As soon as one postulates the existence of a being powerful enough to call the universe into existence, it stands to reason that such a being would be powerful enough to suspend the laws of that universe in any number of ways. The conclusion is logical.
The catch is when you examine the premise: that the being exists. That is not a belief one reaches (or rejects) mainly through reason.
b) having to prove it to anyone (for we have seen it is possible to know things whilst not being able to prove them)?
I don't see why a belief in the supernatural must be logically proven to anybody else in order for one to have it.
Two situations exist where rational justifications come into play.
1. You intend to make proselytes. Now you are trying to convince the unconvinced. Most evangelists feel a rationally persuasive case is of more use in this task than a purely subjective testimonial. (I'm not so sure.)
2. You intend to get your belief accepted as science. Now you'd better have a truckload of data and an airtight argument, because the ground rules of science are in effect. Your task is to prove the existence of the supernatural and superrational by purely natural and rational means. An impossible task, probably.
c) being of necessity considered delusional?
I don't see how any belief is delusional if it squares with general observation, and if one leaves healthy room for the distance that necessarily exists between reality and one's own idea of it.
A belief becomes delusional when a person (or group) has to reject contrary but valid incoming information in order to maintain the belief. Now instead of a realistic relationship to the environment the person is building an illusory one. The person will function less and less well in the real world as more and more reality is denied in order to sustain the belief.
Delusions have the effect of isolating a person from the environment.
Archer
All species are transitional.
™ Version 4.2
