How does one distinguish faith from delusion?

I kind of agree with RAZD that delusion may be more of a belief in a known falsity.However, your main point still stands, just perhaps with some less-negative wording.Given that faith is "belief that is not based on proof"... is there any possible way to ever know that any faith is actually well-placed?Or, will all things based on faith always have an equal (or possibly greater...) chance of turning out to be nothing more than pure imagination?We do have a bit of a historical track-record that clearly shows that all faith anyone has ever had in any historical god has always eventually turned out to be considered "just imagination" and society has moved on.For those gods that are currently believed in today, is it just that they have yet to "run their course?" Is there any way to possibly know the difference?Are there any facts that exist which can possibly show a difference between faith in past gods who have run their course, and faith in current gods who just haven't reached that end yet?Does no one having faith in a god actually have any validity showing that god to not exist?
Does everyone having faith in a god actually have any validity in showing that god to exist?I'd say no to both questions. The only thing that has any validity in showing a god to exist or not is validated information. We can, however, see where a god is "supposed to be," look there, and see if any god is actually there. This is what has mainly been used to push along "the running of a god's course" for historical gods. It is interesting that the gods of today are only "supposed to be" in less and less obvious, physical places. It would seem that perhaps the "realm where gods exist" is shrinking over time.It will be interesting to see how many people still believe in gods if (when?) their realm has shrunk to the point that they never, ever make any discernable difference on our lives here.If there's absolutely no difference between a universe with gods, and a universe without gods... does faith become actual delusion? Or is such a thing impossible because it still wouldn't be a known falsity?If faith is eventually relegated to the simple statement that "god may still exist, even if there's no discernable difference between a universe with a god and a universe without a god"... would that make faith nothing more than an impotent conjecture? As impotent as any other imaginary conjecture for which there is no discernable difference within reality?

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.

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.

But, I don't find that galling at all. Or, at least, I find them equivalent for the context of this discussion.We must remember that the context here is NOT "the amount of displayed paranoia" or "social acceptance of the behaviour."The context I'm talking about is how each one believes in something that they have absolutely no objective evidence for, yet they insist that it be taken by others as absolute truth.Do you agree that the person scared of the KGB believes in something that has absolutely no objective evidence, yet they're insisting to others that what they think is true?Do you agree that the person professing their faith believes in something that has absolutely no objective evidence, yet they're insisting to others that what they think is true?I say yes to both.The aspect of both scenarios that is being discussed here is exactly the same for both. Unless you can show me a difference?

I do not believe there is a Christian God as depicted by the Bible.
"A God" is up for grabs, but largely irrelevent anyway (going by the amount of verifiable information we currently have available). You seem very concerned about what happens after we die. What about what happens while we are alive?If you are right, then I will simply apologize for my inability to honestly discern whatever it was God was trying to tell me, if indeed He was trying to tell me anything at all.I have nothing to fear except for juvenile, arrogant, stupid deities. But, if they exist, I doubt that anyone will have an afterlife worth looking forward to. Not me. I'm simply banking on an honest, benevolent, intelligent God. If one exists that fits those 3 criteria in even a minor extent, I have nothing to fear.I would change your tactics, ICANT, no benevolent God (especially one similar to Jesus in any way) would respect an attempt to bully others towards their cause through the use of fear. Do you really think such a thing is worthy of praise when attempting to reflect a Christian attitude?

You are correct.But, you didn't reply to the OP. You replied to my post, and made comments off of things I said.It is obvious that I certainly did include such a caveat in my post, for the things I was talking about. I even explicitly re-stated it as a conclusion to the message you replied to:

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.

---

It's okay to make mistakes, no one is going to hunt you down and hurt you.

No problem.And I agree with your fact, thanks for pointing it out, I havn't thought about it enough to make the connection yet.To rephrase: What I've been saying to describe the word "delusional" would certainly include many major religious beliefs... especially those that include preaching in the "witnessing" sense.This leads directly back to what Rahvin was saying. That the only difference between "delusion" and "faith" is the popularization within society to think of faith as normal and therefore creating a cognitive dissonance in connecting anything 'normal' to being 'negative' in the sense that comes with being delusional.However, when we get right down to it and go over the specific defintions, it's easy to see.

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.

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.

...I do not think-ida-means what you think-ida-means.
-Innigo Montoya, The Princess Bride Anything that is evidence is a fact. If it is not a fact, then it is not evidence.The thing you describe (non-scientific 'evidence', mystical or some other type) are reasons to believe in something. But they are not evidence.The two are close, but there is a very important difference.Reasons are not necessarily facts.If I think comparing a duck's weight to a girl's is a good system to determine if she is a witch... that's a reason. But it's not evidence.
(Care of Monty Python - The Holy Grail).If you insist on using the term "evidence" to describe anything that may simply be a "reason," then we'll be forced to invent a new word to describe reasons that are based on facts.I suggest we use the system that currently exists, and we simply stop using the word "evidence" as a synonym for "any reason at all."

You are correct. People often do abuse the word "evidence." I was just trying to inform you of how pretty much everyone else has been intending it's usage in this thread so that we can avoid any unintentional abuse.

I believe the 2nd definition is being used because it's what the 3rd and 8th boil down to eventually anyway.3rd... "Belief in God..." But belief based on what? In the sense of religious things, since there is no factual evidence, we are again left with "Belief (in God) that is not based on proof (evidence).8th... "Trust in God..." But trust based on what? In the sense of religious things, since there is no factual evidence, we are again left with "Trust (in God) that is not based on proof (evidence).Since all trust/belief/faith in religious context if forced to be "not based on proof", simply because there is no factual evidence in existence... everything all boils down to Definition #2 anyway.I think.

After reading through all the responses, I'm left with the general consensus that the only difference between faith and delusion is social acceptance.First, those on one side portray that there is "no difference" between faith and delusion. And, in certain basic definitions which do not include variations of social acceptance, we are left with this technical "no difference" answer.Second, those on the defensive side have only been able to display a difference which one way or the other depends upon social acceptance. It can be described as benign or even beneficial non-objective ideas in one's head are "faith" while negative or destructive non-objective ideas in one's head are "delusions."One aspect brought up by Modulous would be those "non-objective ideas in one's head" that can be traced back to a mental illness are delusions and those not tied to illness could be labelled as faith. The only problem with this division is that the same idea could be a delusion in one person, but faith in another. There certainly exists mentally ill people who's only "non-objective idea in their heads" is religion itself. Also, it may be impossible to know if the mental illness creates this area required for delusions, or if it merely brings to the surface an aspect of simply being human that all of us have anyway.However, the largest telling factor in all of this has to be the reluctance of those defending that faith cannot be a delusion to actually define "delusion" or "faith" in some useful manner. I attempted to begin this process in Message 69 which was never replied to by anyone.If we take that definition of delusion, which seems rather reasonable to me:

quote:

---

Delusional:
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)
Note - 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.

---

...then it follows that the insistent preaching of faith is indeed delusion. Of course, this is also one of those definitions that avoids the "social stigma" of the word delusion carrying some negative aspect. Which then leads (yet again) to the difference being social acceptance.In conclusion, I'm left with the overwhelming sense that the only difference between faith and delusion is social acceptance. This is the identical conclusion to a very similar thread from almost two years ago:
Message 1