How does one distinguish faith from delusion?

Most of the discussion in this thread has revolved around delusion, but I'd like to focus on faith.The definition of faith in the OP is a good one:

quote:

---

This is a question for all those who claim to have "faith" in something.
First definitions:

​

quote:

---

Faith - belief that is not based on proof. (dictionary.com)

---

---

This says there is a lack of proof, not necessarily a lack of evidence. Yet from the OP onward, many in this thread have equated "lack of proof" with "lack of evidence." E.g.:

quote:

---

As we can see, both terms involve a lack of evidence and reasoning to support them.

---

Proof and evidence are not the same thing.Science also requires faith. As we all know, scientific theories can never be proven. They can only be evidenced or verified. Based on the evidence, we believe that our theories are correct, even though we cannot prove it. Can we prove that the universe began with a Big Bang roughly 13.7 billion years ago? No, but we believe it because the evidence is very strong. Can we prove that the sun will rise tomorrow? No, but we believe it because of our understanding of the laws of nature and their constancy.While there may be some religious believers who exercise "blind faith" (i.e. faith in the absence of any evidence), I believe this is a small minority. Most religious believers have some sort of evidence for their faith. This is not scientific evidence, of course; it may be historical, or experiential, or mystical, or some other type of evidence. But it is evidence nonetheless.

quote:

---

How is Atheism faith? You seriously think faith can be defined in not believing in something? Atheism is the lack of faith.

---

According to dictionary.com, "atheism" is: And as mentioned in the OP, "faith" is: Since one cannot prove that there is no God, atheism is indeed faith.

quote:

---

Belief and faith are not the same thing. Faith is belief without any underlying evidence.

---

Not according to the English definition from dictionary.com in the OP. It says that faith is belief without proof, not belief without evidence.And not according to the Greek word pistis which is translated as "faith" in the New Testament. This means "conviction of the truth of something" (Thayer). It is related to the word peitho, "to be persuaded." Biblical faith is not blind, but is persuasion based on evidence.

quote:

---

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.

---

You make a reasonable distinction between evidence and reasons, but I think you are being overly restrictive in your definitions.From dictionary.com: A "ground for belief" can be fairly broad, and can include subjective as well as objective data.In science we require "evidence" to be objective and fact-based. But when we get out of the realm of science, the word evidence is often used of things which you would call "reasons" rather than "facts." This sort of evidence becomes more subjective, and is not accepted by everyone.I suppose one could distinguish between objective (fact-based) evidence and subjective evidence, which you would probably call "reasons."Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Do deists/theists have faith? Or do they have evidence? Which is it?

---

Both. We have faith which is based on evidence.

quote:

---

Really?

​

What evidence supports the existence of god(s)? Be specific.

---

A discussion of specific evidence would probably become a heated exchange and would quickly pull us off the topic of this thread. Besides, I'm sure there are many other threads on this forum which have discussed this. If you want to see reasons I would recommend looking at those threads or at the various Christian responses to Dawkins' "The God Delusion." (I'd recommend the books "Dawkins' God" and "The Dawkins Delusion" by Alister McGrath, and the book "God's Undertakers" by John Lennox.)Militant atheists will try to reject any evidence for God put forth by theists, of course. They will try to claim that we theists are deluded. This doesn't mean that we have no evidence, rather that the evidence is not accepted by the skeptic.This strikes me as similar to the way in which young earth creationists (YECs) reject any evidence for an old universe, and try to claim that we scientists are deluded. We believe that the Big Bang occurred, based on abundant evidence. But we can't prove it. This gives YECs enough wiggle room to claim that we are deluded or that there is some sort of cosmic conspiracy.How do we distinguish between faith and delusion in this case? How do we objectively defend to a YEC that our belief in a Big Bang is not a delusion, and that the evidence for it is compelling? I'm not sure that we can do this in a way that will convince a skeptical YEC. Likewise, I'm not sure there is any way to convince a militant atheist that my faith in God is not a delusion.Edited by kbertsche, : Changed "atheist" to "militant atheist" in two places.

Re my distinction between objective and subjective evidence:

quote:

---

One needs to be careful going down this road. I have considered this question for some time now, and it seems to me that, at best, the evidence of subjective experiences of a religious nature point to a general spirituality, whether it is due to god/s per se or some emergent property of the developing human mind, is an open question. I certainly reach no "actionable" conclusions from this, rather that there is not enough information at this time. At best these experiences cannot just be dismissed, for there are so many of them, for anyone with an open mind.

---

Agreed; perhaps a distinction between objective and subjective evidence is not the best. Maybe scientific versus non-scientific evidence is more pertinent. (I believe that there is objective as well as subjective evidence for the Christian faith, but I would not call any of this scientific evidence per se.)

quote:

---

Actually the only distinction that makes any sense at all is a distinction between material evidence and immaterial "evidence".

​

Namely the distinction between that which can in principle be detected by means of our fives senses (or related instruments of detection) and that which cannot.

---

I don't think this is any better than the distinction between subjective and objective. How would you classify such evidence types as historical, textual, psychological, and sociological? Aren't these material (and objective)?The skeptic can argue against historical evidence and can spin alternative conspiracy theories, whether the evidence refers to the existence of Jesus, the holocaust, or the moon landing. Though skeptics can argue against scientific evidence as well, it seems to be easier for them to argue against historical (non-scientific) evidence.

quote:

---

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.

---

It's important to note that the example which dictionary.com gives for definition #2 of "faith" is from the realm of science rather than religion:

quote:

---

Why, exactly, do you think this is important?

---

It illustrates that faith exists in science as well as in religion. The oft-claimed dichotomy between science and faith is a false one.Neither science nor religion offers proof. Both require faith, hopefully based on evidence. The main difference is the nature of the evidence in each case.

quote:

---

Immaterial entities cannot be experienced by means of our material senses. So how can they be evidenced at all?

---

Good question. A god who does not and has never interacted with the universe (similar to Dawkins' flying teapot) would not be evidenced. There must be some sort of interaction with the universe to provide evidence for God.

quote:

---

So are you saying purely deistic non-interfering, non-interacting gods are necessarily unevidenced?

---

I'm saying that only a god who has never interacted with the universe, not even in its creation, would be necessarily unevidenced. A deistic god is conceived to be a creator god; the existence of the universe itself would therefore be evidence of such a god. (Perhaps RAZD or someone else who claims to be a deist could answer this question better?)Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

quote:

---

But do you think that a god/deity that is completely and inherently immaterial is unable to be evidenced by means of personal experience? Genuinely immaterial entities cannot be experienced by our material senses. Yes?

---

If man is an interacting combination of material and immaterial (i.e. body and soul), then can't the immaterial part of man experience an immaterial god?Further, if this immaterial God is truly the creator and sustainer of all that is material (i.e. the Christian view of God), then can't He interact with the material world (and our material senses) as well?

quote:

---

Do you agree that purely deistic non-interfering, non-interacting immaterial gods are necessarily unevidenced by any form of personal expereince that is reliant on our material senses? You seemed to initially agree and are now subtly changing the subject.

---

I agreed to something similar to this (without the word "deistic") in Message 132. Then you changed the subject in Message 133 by omitting the qualifiers "non-interfering, non-interacting", which caused me to respond differently in Message 134.You've mentioned the concept of a "deistic non-interfering, non-interacting immaterial god" at least twice now--why do you see such a hypothetical god as so significant? (I really don't see the point of a truly "non-interfering, non-interacting god" who either does not or cannot affect the material world. Why would anyone want to worship such a weak, distant deity? Why even consider him any more of a god than Dawkins' cosmic teapot?)And what bearing does any of this have on the subject of the thread? How do these hypotheticals help us to distinguish between faith and delusion?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Further, if this immaterial God is truly the creator and sustainer of all that is material (i.e. the Christian view of God), then can't He interact with the material world (and our material senses) as well?

---

Well then he is not immaterial is he? He is flipping between material and immaterial.

---

No, there is no flipping between material and immaterial implied in my comment. The God of the Bible is "immaterial" but is not the "non-interfering, non-interacting" god that you have hypothesized above.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

quote:

---

If a god cannot logically be evidenced in any way then having any confidence in the existence of such a thing is delusional.

---

It appears that your agenda is to argue against specific evidences for a god and try to conclude that all religious faith is delusional. That's not the topic of this thread.The topic of this thread is the broader, philosophical issue of how to distinguish faith from delusion. This question applies not only to religion, but also to science and other endeavors.