|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How does one distinguish faith from delusion? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
themasterdebator Inactive Member |
This is a question for all those who claim to have "faith" in something.
First definitions:
quote: quote: As we can see, both terms involve a lack of evidence and reasoning to support them. A schizophrenic may believe they have voices in their held telling them to do things. The consensus among almost everyone other than the schizophrenic is that the guy is delusion. Yet when someone claims God is speaking to them, it is considered faith. So then, my question to you is this. How do you distinguish between a delusional experience you have had and a religious faithful experience you have had? What criteria do you use? I would prefer no circular arguments if possible (IE I have faith that my faith is not a delusion). Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Tweaked the formatting, including adding the quote boxes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
Thread copied here from the How does one distinguish faith from delusion? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi themasterdebater
As we can see, both terms involve a lack of evidence and reasoning to support them. The definition I have used for delusion is:
Where the defining element of delusion involves a false belief and ignoring and denying the contradictory evidence. People that think they are Napoleon for example. Or that the earth is 6,000 years old.
The consensus among almost everyone other than the schizophrenic is that the guy is delusion. Yet when someone claims God is speaking to them, it is considered faith. And when god/s tell a woman to drown her children it is still delusion, yes? Functionally, delusion only enters the process when a person becomes dangerous to themselves or to others, and there are many people with "harmless delusions." There are also many beliefs that cannot be considered delusional because we don't know that they are false. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : fixed funky characters de·lu·sion -noun 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
themasterdebator Inactive Member |
There are also many beliefs that cannot be considered delusional because we don't know that they are false. I think lack of evidence is a much better term because your definition excludes allot of people who should be considered delusional. Nobody can say for sure that a schizophrenic person is not in fact hearing real voices from aliens in his head. There is no way to "know" if those voices are real or a delusion. However, nobody else is hearing these voices and these voices provide no evidence of their existence, so they are considered delusions. Same if a psychotic person claims to have visions of things nobody else sees. These visions are considered delusions. Even if they are not falsifiable(as you cannot prove a negative). Maybe there is a better term to describe this than delusion, if so I would love to hear this. But back to the main point of my post. How do you distinguish a false voice or beliefs from a faithful belief? For instance, if a schizophrenic person claimed to have talked with God, how would you distinguish this as accurate or inaccurate compared to say, if he claimed to talk with rocks or frogs? Edited by themasterdebator, : No reason given. Edited by themasterdebator, : clarity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Evlreala Member (Idle past 3106 days) Posts: 88 From: Portland, OR United States of America Joined: |
..and if everybody in the world is hearing voices that are not "real" are they not delusional by majority vote?
The state of being delusional is objective and not subject to our interpretation of the delusion. Recognising the delusion for what it is and reality for what it is not is an entirely different matter, but does not change the delusion from being what it is. The law of identity applies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2137 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
How about this (while whimsical, there is a lot of truth--or TRVTH--in this view):
Your religion is a faith. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
I kind of agree with RAZD that delusion may be more of a belief in a known falsity. Not all of what we identify as "Delusions" are known falsehoods. When a man hears voices in his head, we have no objective way of knowing that the voices do not come from aliens or ghosts or deities or Professor Xavier. The proposition "I hear voices in my head that come from an external source" is not falsifiable. It posits direct, non-sensory input to the brain manifesting as an auditory hallucination, but simply because we have been unable to duplicate such a feat and are unable to detect it doesn't mean it's actually falsified.
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? Eventually, in some cases, sure. A broken clock is right twice a day; random guessing has a pretty bad track record, but every now and again it's right. See the lottery: how many people have "faith" that their ticket will be the winner? Inevitably, some of those people will see their faith vindicated. In this case, you could say that thier faith was well-placed. However, in such cases, faith is still no better than at best educated guessing. The innumerably vast majority of those people will still lose despite their faith; their rate of success will be no better than anyone else making a random guess. How many people pray when going into surgery and have faith that they will pull through? Their faith may demonstrably have nothing to do with their recovery (instead recovering due to the hard work of their doctors), but you could easily take this as "Well-placed" faith. I'd put some degree of confidence in my doctor, too - presumeably he's been trained to deal with health issues and knowswhat he's doing. Putting "faith" in his abilities (my version would be more like confidence in the statistically proven ability of doctors to make people well as opposed to other means such as homeopathy that have statistically proven negligible effectiveness) is not unfounded; you could say that, for a person who actually cares about the abilities of the doctor as opposed to attributing all positive/negative results to the whims of an intangible unevidenced deity, it is not strictly speaking "faith" at all.
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? In terms of evidence and likelihood of accuracy, faith and delusion are basically interchangeable. All are based on untestable, unfalisiable, unsubstanciates propositions based on no objective evidence at all. They're functionally identical to a runaway imagination, to unfounded speculation based on insufficient data based on the personal preferences of the individual. In most cases I would say that the delineation between delusion and faith is one of popularity, much like the difference between a cult and a religion; if many people share the same belief (or at least identify the belief as reasonable), it will be identified as faith.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4220 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
From what I can see:
It is faith when the person's beliefs agree with the other person's It is delusion when the person's beliefs disagree with thew other person's ie John believes in Jahweh David believes in Jahweh David says that John belief is faith. but John believes in Zeus, David believes in Jahweh David says John's belief is delusion and John would say David's belief is delusion. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kitsune Member (Idle past 4331 days) Posts: 788 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
quote: It seems to me that there is a presupposition here that has so far gone unsaid. Note the words "proof" and "lack of supporting evidence' in the above definitions. If you're doing science, you are using the scientific method, which is based on empiricism. It sounds as if some people here are applying empiricism to more philosophical realms and IMO the two do not always equate. Surely, having some faith that there is more to life than what the 5 senses can detect is not delusional? That is an emotive word with specific and negative connotations and I've noticed that many atheists use it liberally to describe all non-atheists. I don't believe this is correct and I find it condescending.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
Surely, having some faith that there is more to life than what the 5 senses can detect is not delusional? In what way is it different? Be specific.
That is an emotive word with specific and negative connotations and I've noticed that many atheists use it liberally to describe all non-atheists. I don't believe this is correct and I find it condescending. Your emotional reaction is irrelevant to the question of whether the description is accurate. Can you point out a meaningful difference between faith and delusional beliefs?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
There are also many beliefs that cannot be considered delusional because we don't know that they are false. The problem with this approach is that there are a near infinite number of concepts that are not contradicted by any evidence and which never can be contradicted by any evidence. Immaterial Unicorns, Ethereal Squirrels, extra-dimensional-aliens, magic fairies, spirits, undetectable toilet goblins.... Whatever. As you know the only way to seperate these entities into those that you consider "reasonable" and those that you consider "absurd" is to commit the logical fallacy of special pleading. Surely we don't need to go over this again?
Where the defining element of delusion involves a false belief and ignoring and denying the contradictory evidence. People that think they are Napoleon for example. If he bases this claim on the idea that he was Napoleon in a previous life is that contradicted by any evidence? Is it delusional?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3322 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
LindaLou writes:
Philosophy without empiricism has been tried in the past and has so far turned out to be bullshit. In the past, philosophers at one point were considered authoritative in matters of reality. They produced some of the most bullshitted ideas about reality. It sounds as if some people here are applying empiricism to more philosophical realms and IMO the two do not always equate. Aristotelian physics, for example, did not at all reflect reality at all. One could simply disprove it by throwing an object and observe the parabolic path that it falls rather than the rectilinear motion bullshit that people believed. I guess what I'm trying to say in too many words is empiricism applies to everything if you don't want to be delusional. We have plenty of examples from the past where empiricism wasn't used and the result was almost always bullshit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi again themasterdebator
I think lack of evidence is a much better term because your definition excludes allot of people who should be considered delusional. In your personal opinion, unfortunately that has little effect on how the term is used in psychology, as you alluded in Message 1.
Nobody can say for sure that a schizophrenic person is not in fact hearing real voices from aliens in his head. There is no way to "know" if those voices are real or a delusion. So you don't have any real evidence, you just believe they are delusional without evidence. Congratulations, you are now a card carrying member by your own definition.
But back to the main point of my post. How do you distinguish a false voice or beliefs from a faithful belief? For instance, if a schizophrenic person claimed to have talked with God, how would you distinguish this as accurate or inaccurate compared to say, if he claimed to talk with rocks or frogs? If I were being open-minded yet skeptical I would first consider that it is possibly true (open-minded), but await further evidence of this before proceeding (skeptical). If I was curious about it, perhaps from having had a similar personal experience, or from knowing others who had a similar experience, I would look to see how many similar experiences were involved. If I were really interested I might want to study psychology at a university. Is it a common experience in the culture? Was it a persistent condition or rare? (Does one experience make a person a nutter or is there more to it, a pattern of behavior?) Clinical psychosis is not something that can be determined by pop-culture formulas, internet quizzes and personal opinions, but is something that takes educated and trained observation to determine properly. http://www.minddisorders.com/Br-Del/Delusional-disorder.html
quote:Color for emphasis. Much more, quite interesting stuff, but proper diagnosis of psychological delusion is not done on internet forums by reading articles posted on the internet, but rather it takes an in depth study by a professional. So yes, it is more than just believing something without evidence, and it involves ignoring contrary evidence. Consider non-clinical delusion, definition 1 or 2 from my post, which basically means being mislead or misinformed: if you are told something false, and you believe it because you trust the source, then you have been deluded by the source. This type of delusion is easily identified when the falsehood is exposed by contrary evidence and the belief is dropped, and this is why the clinical version includes denial of contrary evidence. Enjoy. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi LindaLou, good point.
If you're doing science, you are using the scientific method, which is based on empiricism. It sounds as if some people here are applying empiricism to more philosophical realms and IMO the two do not always equate. It's like trying to understand art by logic and empirical evidence alone - can't do it. This relates to the Consilience - the Unity of Knowledge thread and further reading in the book (I need to update the thread ...). Some people seem to think they can live their entire lives by the scientific method, an interesting delusion eh?
That is an emotive word with specific and negative connotations and I've noticed that many atheists use it liberally to describe all non-atheists. I don't believe this is correct and I find it condescending. At best it implies that you have been conned, at worst it implies that you are a nutcase. There is no positive connotation, however the "you have been conned" version, like ignorance, can be cured by learning new (to you) information/s. Ignorance likewise carries negative connotations, as does uneducated and illiterate. These too are curable conditions in the usual form, however willful ignorance (CTD on decay rates) is not.
Surely, having some faith that there is more to life than what the 5 senses can detect is not delusional? To me (personal opinion here) it involves how committed a person is to such a belief: if it is tentative, a currently uncontradicted possibility, held until such time as the belief is contradicted and then abandoned or modified to fit the new evidence (in best scientific methodology), then no, it is not delusional. It may seem silly to some people, but that is their opinion, and opinion alone does not make it delusional. Enjoy. 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) • • •
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024