How does one distinguish faith from delusion?

quote:

---

I disagree. If rational empiricism is the method you've chosen to view the objective world through, why would you change that just because rational empiricism gives you an unsatisfactory answer? If R.E. doesn't work, it either means the question is subjective in nature, which is a different thing entirely from what we're discussing, or the question itself is probably invalid. If you're talking about liking a picture, love, or anything of a subjective nature, then R.E. doesn't touch it, but it doesn't claim to, and if it's subjective, then delusion and faith don't apply either, as both imply some measure of objectivity.

---

If I'm trying to measure the objective world, as the term is commonly used here, then empiricism is almost always the best way. What sort of hypothetical case are you talking about where the empirical result would be "unsatisfactory" to me?One of the earlier points I made in this thread is that all of us here have a way of looking at or perceiving the world, which acts as the basis for how we think about and measure all things. I think it's easy to forget about this when the apparently straightforward, commonsense view is that there's me, this thinking brain, inside a body, and I'm a separate objective part of the world which is full of other separate objective parts. And it works well in science -- but it is not the only way of perceiving.This should perhaps answer a lot of questions put to me here, some of them repeatedly, though I was hoping that Message 140 was clear enough on its own. The terms subjective and objective are philosophical positions, not given facts. I briefly discussed some examples from philosophy that are are very different from each other: empiricism and rationalism (which complement each other well) and solipsism. Solipsism in some form has been advocated by many philosophers down the centuries and forms part of the basis of some systems of religious thought today. If you are a solipsist, then objective and subjective are meaningless. I believe there is a spectrum bewteen solpisism and empiricism on which one's world view can be placed. And while the two extremes and everything in between can be debated til the cows come home, I don't see how it is possible for anyone to definitively demonstrate that they have arrived at The Truth on their own chosen point of the spectrum.I tend more toward a solipsistic view of reality than most others here, as I explained in Message 140. I don't believe that makes me more "right" than anyone and I'm sorry if I've come off as sounding patronising at times -- I don't mean to be. I think sometimes we are working from different basal philosophical positions and when this isn't recognised there can be confusion. I don't draw the distinctive lines between objective and subjective that some others here do. The extremes of each are more clear cut, such as the age of a rock vs. my opinion about a piece of art, but in between there are shades of grey.Just to elucidate my way of thinking a little more: I don't know if anyone here is familiar with the Myers-Briggs personality test, but I get INFJ every time I take it and I feel it's a very accurate description of me. Just for fun, if anyone else wants to take the test, you can find a good free version of it here. It might explain why some of us find it challenging to understand each other's points of view. IMO no single personality type is any "better" than any other, and they all have different ways of viewing and responding to the world.

quote:

---

A faith or belief posits something that objectively exists.

---

Spiritually speaking, maybe. I've dealt with difficulties in finding empirical evidence for the divine elsewhere; see Message 180. Personally, I do not believe in a deity. I am closer to being a pantheist. But I think it's possible that we have a soul and that spirits exist (other than the intoxicating kind). I could cite evidence for why I believe this too, though some of the complications I listed in Message 180 also apply.

quote:

---

You've seen someone get better after having something done that was claimed to be "energy healing." For this to become a rational belief . . .

---

You've described how it can be a scientifically validated belief. If I believe I've seen it work on me and others, and it is doing no harm (I would not advocate doing that in place of necessary medical treatment), then personally I'm not fussed about the absence of scientific studies. If well-conduced scientific studies soundly condemned it as a valid way of healing, then I would not avoid reading the studies and evaluating my own beliefs. As I've said in other posts, I would want to know about possible experimenter bias, parameters, methods of measurement, the actual methods which are used and tested, the details of the cohort involved, the reasons for the conclusions reached, and so on. I'm used to doing this with tests on drugs and vitamins because they are usually not as cut-and-dried as many would like to believe. You don't get these kinds of complications when you are measuring the ages of rocks

quote:

---

it's a logical extrapolation tro believe that life exists on other planets based on what we know and assume, but I hold that possibility with a grain of salt and knowledge that I want it to be true and that this want may overshadow my skepticism at times. When it comes to actual extraterrestial visitations, I am much more skeptical, again because of what we think we know about the universe, it's physical laws, and the entirely subjective nature of any "evidence" provided by UFO believers.

---

I think I'd take a similar approach to you; my grain of salt would perhaps be just a little smaller. I imagine that if intelligent aliens exist, perhaps they've found ways to punch holes through dimensions or dematerialise and rematerialise, who knows? Maybe we will do such things ourselves one day. Also, UFO stories would make an interesting psychological study, and I like the frisson of genuine-sounding cases that are unexplained.Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.Edited by LindaLou, : Bold & italics aren't working the way I want . . .Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix a quote box.

quote:

---

I have previously explained that I have studied philosophy and feel your philosophical take on the world is not what I agree with.

---

I don't have a problem with that, and we're fortunate to live in a society where we can freely choose what to believe.My point, though, is while we may each choose different philosophies to guide us, I don't think it's possible to demonstrate that one is closer to The Truth than others (see Message 226). The most honest thing I feel we can say to each other in this respect is simply, "My opinion is different from yours," and not "You are wrong." If philosophers haven't been able to hash it out over the course of centuries, what hope do we have?

quote:

---

Kind of condescending don't you think.

---

Well you did say that the list of questions in Message 140 was "mumbo jumbo." Which is dismissal rather than engagement. As I've said before, instead of taking my comments as insults, why don't you just tell me why you think they are wrong?

quote:

---

I have the sneaky suspicion that you won't be satisfied with anything we say.
So there you go.

---

I said this because Straggler has taken little of what I've said on board and has not read many of my posts here, including the ones I directed him to. Not bothering to listen to me, he keeps repeating the same things he's been saying throughout the thread. He seems to have added something new lately, which I will look at, but we've been over the old ground a lot and I'm not going to keep running round in circles on it.

quote:

---

Linda, if you have answered his question, I do not see it either. All I see is you evading Stragglers repeated request for a specific criteria for subjective evidence.

---

Please see Message 226.

quote:

---

You say there is subjective evidence separating delusion and faith but are not willing to provide a rigorous specific criteria separating the two.

---

I don't believe there is a specific stand-alone set of "rigorous specific criteria." People like Straggler who want this are bound to be disappointed. That isn't to say that we can't apply some epistemologies to differentiate between the reality of the experience of enlightenment and the flying spaghetti monster. RAZD and kbersche have been discussing this here and I've so far discussed it with Modulous in Message 157 and Message 189. His recent post to me is pending a reply too, which will take some thought and which I'll probably work on after I come back from holiday the next few days.

My point is that only one group of people believe I am deluded.Even people of other faiths don't believe I am deluded in the same way you do.But belief in God does not require delusion, as you can look at all of those billions of creative facts in creation, that show the Creator.Why should your group not ask yourselves the same question? Are you some kind of uber-group where it doesn't apply?

...that this topic was going to go a lot better than as turned out.I think I'm going to close this one out sometime in the next 24 hours.Closing statements???Adminnemooseus

---

Hi 'moose.My closing statement is that claiming people with faith, are deluded, is nothing new, and it doesn't get any more impressive as a claim, but is not very relevant to real life.Mod' corrected my error, that only I can know if I am deluded. That is wrong, usually it is other people who see you are deluded, but it doesn't follow that this makes you deluded if they think that they perceive that you are deluded when you are not. It's an "EASY" dig at believers, usually used by folk like Dawkins.It is too easy to handwave away a particular belief system by claiming that all belief systems are generic delusions.It's bad logic to use a general argument to conclude something about a singular, a fallacy of composition pertaining to the units of a whole.You or Dawkins cannot detect whether I am deluded, therefore you have no basis to conclude that I am.(This post isn't aimed at you moose.. but the claimants.)

How do you know they are a deluded person acting on their delusions and not a faithful person acting on their faith? That's the point I was making.So how do we discriminate between someone who has faith, and someone who is having faith coloured delusions? Exactly. Is it? I don't see your point. I'm not arguing that all delusions include religious themes. Maybe it does, if we assume ahead of time that faith is an entirely separate phenomena from delusion. I don't think that "By assuming them to be different" is a very satisfying answer to "How does one distinguish faith from delusion?" You might be right - I'm not saying you aren't. I'm just asking how you can tell if someone who has faith isn't delusional? If I see Jesus and he tells me to love my neighbour and that he'll be watching to make sure I do - is that a delusion? What if Jesus implores me to check my gas hobs ten times before I leave the house? Or if he tells me to microwave my baby child to purify it?I appreciate I'm using examples which include 'hallucinations' - but I figure they should be the more interesting and easy examples. We can worry about people that have faith but have not had a religious experience or have had a 'emotional or difficult to describe sensational' experience later - if space permits.Or are all those examples of faith without delusion? Is seeing an apparition only a delusion when1) The apparition is not a commonly accepted religious entity
2) The apparition tells you to do something commonly regarded as socially negative.And is it faith only when the opposite applies? Or would you say that somebody talking with Jesus who tells them to give to charity is +faith +delusion ? (Sounds eerily Orwellian, I think I'll stick with someone who has faith and is deluded!)

We're having a philosophical debate. You would fail any philosophy course if your essay was essentially two thousand words of 'philosophy is opinion, and it cannot be demonstrated that one is closer to the truth than others'. You suggest there are other criteria for truth, and that's fine. You vaguely wave your hand in the near direction of a couple of them - but you fail to argue why they should be taken seriously. Why we should include them in our methods for establishing truth.Philosophy has advanced a lot over the course of centuries, you'll find that the epistemological arguments are almost entirely surrounding the mix of rationalism and empiricism (or constructivism in some cases) that is best, as well as ideas surrounding the problem of inductive logic etc. So philosopher's have concluded that we can't 100% know certain things (principle of fallibilism etc), but the arguments have certainly advanced over the centuries.I don't think repeating "I have a different philosophical starting point" over and over is debating in good faith unless you tell us exactly what that starting point is.So make your case, this is a debate after all. Give us a method for discriminating between faith and delusion that is not some form of rational empiricism or logical positivism or what have you, and explain why it is more reliable or otherwise superior. We might not agree - but we might actually understand your position.abe: If you are a solipsist then in your philosophy, you are arguing with (potential) figments of your imagination (or the constructs of someone else's, or similar) - by any reasonable definition of deluded you are very likely delusional - even if you think that your delusions serve some greater purpose.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I am not sure that I do either. Evidence should be demonstrably detectable and demonstrably superior to guessing. That is about as much criteria as I have requested. Is that so unreasonable? Who is this other Straggler you keep referring to? He sounds like a right immovable zealout. I am glad I am not him. Again untrue. I have read them all. But if you feel I have not addressed any question you have asked then let me know and I will endevour to do so. I am not the evasive one here.You on the other hand still haven't stated which forms of non-empirical/immaterial evidence you include and disclude. A single specific example will suffice. One single example!!! New? If we are talking about "Guessing" Message 222 then let it be noted I first addressed this issue to RAZD back in April and have raised it numerous times in this same context!! However I look forward to your response.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

quote:

---

...that this topic was going to go a lot better than as turned out.
I think I'm going to close this one out sometime in the next 24 hours.

​

Closing statements???

---

Don't have time to add anything new at the moment. I'm just curious about what you expected from the topic but did not see? Or which direction you were hoping it would go in?Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

There are no facts in creation. What you call facts, are beliefs. That is the delusion. Belief in something that has no physical evidence.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since 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

In one corner we have the objectively evidenced and indisputable fact that humans are prone to inventing supernatural entities.In the other corner we have immaterial subjective "evidence". A form of evidence that requires that we have a non-material "sixth" sense in order that we can experience it at all. A form of evidence from which the conclusions derived are no more reliable than random (or biased) guesses.In terms of superiority of evidence there is absolutely no contest at all. Message 3Indeed. I could not agree more.

Where is your answer?Stragglers question. I just read that post again. I do not see a response to Straggler. As a matter of fact 226 isn't even a response to Straggler. Also, 226 is a brand new post, but you have been claiming for days that you have already responded to Straggler. Is 226 just your reasoning of why you can't answer straggler? I am sorry but you posts tend to get all lost in some sort of attempt at sophisticated deepness, when in reality they are just philosophical mumbojumbo(yup, I said it again) You are, again, explaining your philosophical beliefs, but not dealing with the questions that have been raised about those beliefs. You are not presenting any evidence to back you belief that faith is not delusion, except to say that you do not believe it is. That is all well and good but not much of a basis for a debate. If we all were like this then the debate would be.It is.
No it isn't
Yes it is.
Is not.Straggler has asked some specific questions, that you have refused to answer. You have been hung up on your questions,(That people have addressed) and have accused him of not debating fairly. I am tired of hearing of your beliefs. I want to hear your evidence that faith is not delusion. Nothing more, nothing less.

---

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

The experiences we're talking about are, themselves, inexplicit and ambiguous so its hard to describe them in the way you want them to be described. There's a difference between having a "waking vision" (which was involuntary) and voluntarily imagining an ethereal yellow squirrel. But yeah, the things you mention above are the kinds of things that people are talking about. Its nearly impossible to say. The experiences, themselves, don't seem to follow some kind of basis in the first place. We all sit around and talk to each other about our experiences and find the similarities and differences and try to figure out the best explaination for what we all are experiencing. That's not a simple guess.Although, since the results can't be empirically verified, if you only accept empirical verification as the method to measure the value of the explanation, then you're never going to see the results as anything better than a guess.But because the explaination seem to be the same as a guess to you does not mean that we are simply guessing.

Lindalou,This has been a long and unfortunately an unfullfilling thread. Though I found yours and Mods intercourse interesting, ultimately I agree with masterdebator and Theodoric, you evaded Stragglers repeated request for a specific criteria for subjective evidence. Asserting you have answered when many others say you haven't is, . . . um, . . . delusional?