How does one distinguish faith from delusion?

Sure it is. If you believe in something that has absolutely no evidence then you are delusional. People have been trying to show me evidence for years. It is not evidence it is faith. Faith that goes against all the five senses. Until you can show proof it is delusion in my book.By the way, what is "more to life"? What "more" do people want? An afterlife? My life has plenty of meaning without a belief in the supernatural. I do not have to have some delusional faith in order to live a good moral life.

---

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

The 5 senses do not provide us with any direct sensation of numerous phenomena that have clearly been proven to exist (ultraviolet and infrared light, non-luminous radioactive decay, ... I'm sure the physicists here can enumerate many examples, more coherently than I can).It seems safe to take as a given that there are additional phenomena, some of which may have a direct impact on our day-to-day existence, that have yet to be observed, because we haven't figured out yet how to observe them in a reliable, replicable, objective manner.Meanwhile, I wonder if anyone among the faithful will come forward to respond (from first-hand experience) to the OP's question. When someone asserts that he or she has personally undergone a profound, transforming experience, which includes perceiving the voice or presence of a divine being, what basis is there for the further assertion that this is not some form of delusion, hallucination, dream-state or other purely neurological "event"?From the point of view of the community at large, the distinction seems to be a matter of value judgment: if a person professes that he/she experienced God, his/her experience is accepted as "religious" if the person's subsequent behavior is "good", and it's labeled as delusional if the behavior turns out "bad". (And of course, to the extent that several "communities" with different value systems coexist within a single society, there will be conflicting judgments.)It would be especially interesting to hear from anyone who feels that their experience (direct perception) of a divine presence is recurrent or continuous, as opposed to being an isolated event at some point in the past. The continuity of the "contact" tends to sustain and amplify the direction of judgment by others: the person is seen as "really good" (religious) or "really bad" (delusional).I suppose it would be a separate thread to explore the "non-religious" correlate of the "religious experience": those of us who never perceive God and don't accept the concept of a deity can still have a sense of wonder and devotion...

---

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

True but we have measuring devices that allow us to use our 5 senses to detect these "phenomena".Are you implying that faith is caused by some sort of non-discovered physical phenomena?

---

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

What the hell are you talking about? Nobody has ever claimed that reality is entirely composed of things that are directly detected by the 5 senses. Don't make things up. Are you trying to compare us indirectly detecting radioactive decay and people's supposed divine revelations?Apples and oranges, you can't compare them. With something like radioactive decay, EVERYBODY who knows how to detect it can agree with each other that it exists. They can even measure them and everyone would agree on the results.Unless someone can repeat a miracle every time like faith healing the sick on a consistent basis, equating indirect detection of natural phenomena to divine revelations is nothing more than bullshit.Sorry, I'm just offended to see science being brought down to the level of faith.

Replying to both Theodoric and Taz:It appears that I must have taken LindaLou's remark differently than you did -- and perhaps I took her remark the wrong way. I was responding to the notion of limiting our perspectives to what "the 5 senses can detect" (currently, that is). Such a notion is too limiting, because it has been amply demonstrated that we are able to expand the range of what we can perceive physically, and we will continue to do that.Of course, LindaLou was apparently trying to say something about "having faith" (holding some belief in the absence of both positive and negative evidence), whereas my reaction was more concerned with "using imagination" (viewing some phenomenon, whether mysterious or mundane, in some novel way that leads to a better understanding based on objectivity).My point was simply that there are still many notions that can only be beliefs today, but could be understood objectively in the future, as we continue to expand our ability to perceive (however, this might not have been LindaLou's point).My apologies for having gotten things mixed up like that.

---

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

Interesting discussion. I'll try to address various questions that have been put to me; if anyone thinks I haven't responded to what they've asked, please let me know.I like RAZD's example of art. How do you define "good" art? Personally I don't like modern non-representational art. I'm quite a fan of Caravaggio and Rembrandt. And I could epxlain to you why this is, which would be my evidence. But why is my own evidence in this area any more valid than someone else's evidence to the contrary? Trying to apply empiricism to such a subject is clearly nonsensical. And I still stand by my comment that philosophy is such an area. Where ancient philosophers such as Aristotle tried to describe physical reality, we can of course apply empiricism and say that we can be reasonably sure whether they were right or wrong. But describing physical reality is not the only mandate of philosophy. And sometimes the dividing line is rather blurry. For example, can empiricism tell us anything about Plato's world of forms? I would say no. It's a way of looking at reality, and we each have our own chosen lenses for viewing.I am training to be a counsellor and I am keenly aware of the labels given to people. We are very ready in this day and age to judge someone as being delusional. A thousand years ago, the community might have judged very differently, and believed that the person had had a profound religious experience. I anticipate that many here will think, "Yes, and that shows how primitive or misguided they were," but that is an opinion too. Let's do a little thought experiment. You travel back in time a thousand years to Europe in the Middle Ages. Being the educated modern person that you are, you tell society that we live in a galaxy called the Milky Way and that the stars are light years away from us, though a telescope and some instruments with which to measure the speed of light would be handy. The continents beneath us move around, though at a rate so slow that we can't detect it without special instruments. There are also zillions of bacteria on us and in us, right now, though you need special instruments to detect them. These "sensible" people of the Middle Ages decide to indulge your fantasies with polite smiles (if you're lucky and escape torture for heresy) because you are obviously a foreigner with some serious delusions about how the world works.How can you empirically know that a person's experience is nothing more than pure meaningless fantasy? How can some people pathologise all religion when it's clear that the vast majority of religious people are well adjusted individuals who cause no harm and actually do some good in the world? Calling someone delusional is a value judgment and IMO the person who makes such a judgment is taking on a large responsibility, especially in the case of a psychiatrist forcibly institutionalising and drugging someone.Addressing the term "faith," I think others have done well with this already. I would just add my own opinion that it applies to that which cannot be proved. Faith which is maintained despite the existence of contradictory evidence is delusion (in the case of most creationists, willfully lying to oneself in order to prop up a cherished belief). We know that the world cannot be 6,000 years old and it is nonsensical to believe otherwise. We don't know, empirically, what happens after we die, or whether spirits exist and can communicate with us, or whether there is a transcendent reality -- though many people (myself included) would argue that you can feel the truth of some things inside yourself. You can't really argue in a logical way for this, but logic and empiricism have limits sometimes when the whole scope of human experience is considered.Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

Yet here is an area where empiricism cannot apply; you cannot empirically define "good art." This is no doubt obvious, but there are also other areas in which empiricism cannot logically be applied. Belief is one, when no evidence exists to disprove the belief. In this sense it's not very different from holding an opinion. As I said in my previous post, judging someone as "deluded" is a subjective act and one that should be carried out with due consideration. There's clearly a difference between believing that your family are really KGB agents secretly out to get you, and believing that the transcendent might exist. In the former case, it would be reasonable to conclude that the person is ill; in the latter, the person is thinking about spirituality.

quote:

---

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?

---

I take it you've never tried meditation. This no doubt sounds like babble to you; but if you open yourself to such experiences, they will come. If you don't, they won't.

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.

Hi LindaLou, My mother - a psychiatrist PhD who worked with autistic children btw - said that just because a person is paranoid does not mean they are not being followed. There is nothing to say that a "delusional" belief which has not been contradicted by any evidence cannot be true. And one of the questions I have tried to pursue, is the one about how one can determine the relative validity of concepts, once you have run off the scientific methodology mapping and into areas where the method cannot be applied. Once we have run off the mapped area of verified evidences we are left with non-verified evidence and logic, and concepts extending into areas where there is no evidence and logic does not help - like art. There is a spectrum rather than a dichotomy, as there is also the realm of evidence that is questionable, and of course the fact that science itself is tentative. The one overarching principle that covers all these concepts is that it cannot be contradicted by evidence and still be valid, whether that concept is a scientific theory or an afternoon day dream.Our individual knowledge\opinions of the world (world views) are a combination of things known\believed in common with other people and things not known\believed in common with other people. Exactly.Enjoy.ps -- if Straggler should happen to say something about my opinion on any topic, see Message 133, Message 402 and Message 407, while if you are interested in my actual position in regards to that topic see Message 338 and Message 353. Note that this topic is not the place to discuss these posts, they are given here for reference.

---

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) • • •

I think you are a bit confused as to what is going on.There are people who understand their faith, and understand that it may not be an accurate representation of reality. They find great comfort and self-confidence from their faith. However they do have a healthy understanding on the limitations that their faith can provide for them. No one is calling these people delusional. They tend to use their faith for what it's actually meant for: personal matters.There are other people who believe their faith is an accurate reflection of reality. Without any objective reason to think so. Sometimes with plenty of objective reason to think otherwise. These are the people being called delusional. When someone claims to have an accurate description of reality, and their basis for such a claim is "faith," then their basis is no different from pure imagination. They do not have any verifiable information to rely on, yet they demand that their "faith" be taken as an absolutely accurate model of reality. Such a belief is what's being called delusional.Nobody is negating the healthy, personal, internal approaches and benefits of faith.The term "delusional" is only being used to describe individuals who adamantly believe their faith is an accurate description of reality, and they attempt to force others into thinking the same.

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.

You're right, but that wasn't my point.I was trying to say that it very well may or may not be right, but we have no way to ever know.A broken clock may very well be right twice a day. But without a working clock we'll never know when those two times are, and the information becomes irrelevent.With faith, we have no "working clock" to compare any claims against, and we are left with no way to know if the claims are ever true. We can't even tell if a faith-based claim is "right twice a day, but we can't tell when" or "completely wrong at all times." I completely agree. Sort of along the same lines as the difference between religion and the Fictional Four (Message 26). One will note that I linked to my message in that topic. That's because I certainly am delusional about my relative importance in life. I've found that the feeling of "it's lonely on top" can be simulated by closing one's eyes and ears.

I missed conversations like this. It's quite a step up from trying to explain to creationists that they can't just sit there and make up ad hoc explanations without being educated in the subjects they are misrepresenting. Faith and evidence again.It's probably obvious that I am in close agreement with RAZD. To put it simply, faith includes the unproved/unprovable. If objective evidence exists to contradict that faith, then clinging to the faith is a delusional act.Straggler, I wonder why you are drawing a line between perceived internal and perceived external experiences. It's all the same thing: perception. I can think of instances where empiricism is not appropriate externally, which I have already cited. Internally, empiricism can sometimes work too, depending on how you look at this internal perception. I have reasons for believing the things I do, and those reasons are based on evidence. I think you'd find that this applies to many people, especially those who have thought consciously about the beliefs they subscribe to (and admittedly some don't). I have read scientific studies in peer-reviewed journals about near death experiences, ESP, and so on, and it seems clear to me that if one can overcome the prejudice against such things being possible, there is indeed more to the world than what we are able to measure with our 5 senses. Though that is not the subject of this thread, I think it is wrong to label people as delusional for believing such things. It's as wrong as labelling the time-traveller delusional because he's talking about things like bacteria that Middle-Age Europeans have never seen or heard of. He would surely sound mentally ill to them -- tiny critters crawling all over your body and your insides?

quote:

---

The fact that you experience something internaly does not mean that you have experienced any aspect of external immaterial reality.

---

Nor does it mean you haven't. How do you know for sure?
Some people believe that "all is one," and that the internal and external are more intricately related than many people realise. There is no evidence to contradict this faith, it harms no one, and it is the experience that some people have reported in deep meditation practised rigorously. Others report feeling this way during loving sex. Astronauts have reported it after having seen the earth from space. IMO to call this delusional, or invalid because it cannot be proved, is to deny a rich part of human experience.

quote:

---

The term "delusional" is only being used to describe individuals who adamantly believe their faith is an accurate description of reality, and they attempt to force others into thinking the same.

---

Hi Stile,Do you think that is accurate though? So the person who is convinced that their family are secret members of the KGB who are out to get them, is in the same category as a Christian who believes in the righteousness of their faith, and in letting others know how they, too, can get to heaven?I had trouble typing that because it's probably as galling to me as it is to you. But IMO "delusional" is too extreme a term. Other words I might personally use are intolerant, ignorant, unthinking, unquestioning. Stripping away all the earthly trappings of religion itself though: holy books, thou shalt/thou shalt not, saints and messiahs, etc -- at the core we've got a belief in a god, gods, something transcendent. Someone here is going to have to make a very strong case for calling this delusional. Calling someone delusional of course requires one to be free of delusions. Atheism is faith, too, so be careful. Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.