Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How does one distinguish faith from delusion?
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 271 of 279 (520210)
08-19-2009 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by Straggler
08-19-2009 2:12 PM


Re: Challenge
quote:
quote:
3) Religious faith generally claims objective as well as subjective evidence. Reducing religious faith to the merely subjective is incorrect.
I accept that would make a difference (even though I disagree that such evidence for gods exists) but can we deal with one form of evidence at a time?
It's good to see you admit this possibility. But unless pressed, you regularly dismiss this possibility as if it doesn't exist. Your posts regularly assume that the only evidence for faith is subjective. (e.g. see Message 237)
quote:
Subjective immaterial evidence and it's equivalence to guessing. Lets concentrate on that first.
No, let's not. You seem to be convinced that "subjective, immaterial evidence" is a poor criterion for distinguishing faith from delusion. That's fine, and may even be correct. So let's quit discussing it and discuss things that are good criteria instead, as the OP suggests:
How do you distinguish between a delusional experience you have had and a religious faithful experience you have had? What criteria do you use?
If you really want an in-depth discussion of "subjective, immaterial evidence" there is another thread Immaterial "Evidence" which is a more appropriate place for this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Straggler, posted 08-19-2009 2:12 PM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by themasterdebator, posted 08-19-2009 11:18 PM kbertsche has replied

themasterdebator
Inactive Member


Message 272 of 279 (520218)
08-19-2009 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by kbertsche
08-19-2009 9:56 PM


Re: Challenge
Kbertsche, for the purpose of this thread I would like to assume we are only talking about subjective evidence. Many people on this board and in the real world rely solely on subjective evidence and I believe if the objective evidence can be firmly disproved, then its best to have a thread prepared for when people start falling back on faith. People seem to use it as a debate stopper. "Oh, all my arguments for a young earth have been disproven, well I still have my faith that there is a young earth"
Edit: Even if the objective evidence has not been disproven, evidence should be able to stand on its own. If one piece of evidence for a concept relies on another piece of evidence for the same concept, then in reality you would only have 1 piece of evidence because if one falls the other would go down with it.
Edited by themasterdebator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by kbertsche, posted 08-19-2009 9:56 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by kbertsche, posted 08-19-2009 11:42 PM themasterdebator has not replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 273 of 279 (520221)
08-19-2009 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by themasterdebator
08-19-2009 11:18 PM


Re: Challenge
quote:
Kbertsche, for the purpose of this thread I would like to assume we are only talking about subjective evidence. Many people on this board and in the real world rely solely on subjective evidence and I believe if the objective evidence can be firmly disproved, then its best to have a thread prepared for when people start falling back on faith. People seem to use it as a debate stopper. "Oh, all my arguments for a young earth have been disproven, well I still have my faith that there is a young earth"
Your OP was written much more broadly, and did not restrict the discussion to "subjective evidence." If this is what you meant, I wish you had spelled it out more clearly in your OP.
(In which case I probably would have not participated in this thread. I am not so interested in subjective evidence. I do not "rely solely" (or even primarily) "on subjective evidence" for faith.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by themasterdebator, posted 08-19-2009 11:18 PM themasterdebator has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 274 of 279 (520225)
08-20-2009 12:10 AM


Last few hours before topic closure
I'm trying for summary/conclusion messages only. Please stop replying to messages - Time to use only the
button (the working one is at the page bottom).
Adminnemooseus

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-22-2009 2:20 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 275 of 279 (520267)
08-20-2009 8:13 AM


Social Acceptance
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

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 276 of 279 (520290)
08-20-2009 1:06 PM


I think a large part of the debate over this topic stems from the emotional connotations of the word "delusion."
"Delusion" implies mental illness, or belief in something proven to be false.
quote:
de⋅lu⋅sion
  /dɪˈluʒən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [di-loo-zhuhn] Show IPA
Use delusion in a Sentence
—noun
1. an act or instance of deluding.
2. the state of being deluded.
3. a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur.
4. Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.
The difference here, then, is that faith encompasses delusional beliefs as well as beliefs that are simply unsupported. From a mental health perspective, a belief that the Earth is only 6000 years old could be considered delusional since it's been proven to be false, while simply believing in god(s) is merely unsupported as opposed to falsified. Both such beliefs, because they are not based on objective evidence, qualify as faith.
The problem is more with the social usage of the word, much like the difficulties we tend to have with Creationists regarding words like "theory" as they pertain to science - common usage of a word does not always match the specific applicable definition.
If a man believes that he was abducted by aliens, is he delusional? Does he have faith? With no evidence, I'd say it's more likely that his belief is based on a vivid dream or other experience...but I cannot actually falsify his claim. Yet many people would consider such a man to be delusional. I don't even think most people would say that the man has faith, despite the fact that his is a belief not based on evidence and so the definition fits perfectly.
As Stile (and others) have said, for the social usage of the term "delusion," the defining aspect is almost certainly social acceptability. To accuse someone of being "delusional" is insulting, and so those beliefs which are acccepted by a lage enough segment of the population ("accepted" meaning either actively beleived or simply found to be reasonable) are considered to be "faith" (or "common knowledge"...but that's a subject for another thread). Those beliefs that are found to be socially unacceptable (belief that an individual is the reincarnation of Napoleon Bonaparte, etc) are considered "delusional" because, after all, those people are whackos.
My issue with this, of course, is that I see no fundamental difference between one outlandish unsupported claim and another. Christian beliefs, to someone raised away from Christian culture (difficult as that is to find), are no more or less "crazy-sounding" than beliefs in a giant Flying Spaghetti Monster, or the great Galactic Emperor Xenu. George Carlin made quite an effective demonstration by simply repeating Christian beliefs that the majority of people take as Gospel truth in a sarcastic and incredulous manner. "There's an invisible man in the sky, and he has a list of 10 things you can never ever do. And if you do these things, he has a special place, where there's burning and crying and torture and screaming and pain forever and ever. But he loves you. And he wants money!" To someone who hadn't been raised with such ideas, asserting that there's an invisible man in the sky sounds no more or less crazy than the reincarnation of Napoleon Bonaparte.
In fact, let's look at a few specific examples that prove the subjectivity of defining faith vs delusion: Mormonism and Scientology.
Many of the specific beliefs of Mormons are regarded as being delusional. "Magic underwear," the idea that God was a man and we can all eventually become Gods by following Mormon teachings, the belief that Native Americans were a tribe of Hebrews, etc are all considered to be various levels of crazy...depending on where you live. Where Mormonism is rare, people tend to consider their more...unique...beliefs to be loony. But in different areas, Mormons are generally accepted. Remember all of the hooplah in the '08 Republican Primaries with Mitt Romney - many Christians weren't comfortable with his "whacky" Mormon beliefs. Obviously, in communities with a higher Mormon presence than America in general tend to have an increased degree of acceptance of Mormon beliefs as simply another faith. It's a clear case of defining delusion and faith based on social acceptance.
More objectively speaking, many Mormon beliefs have been objectively falsified - no Hebrew tribe ever reached the Americas. The Pearl of Great Price was not written on the scroll Joseph Smith provided - which turned out to be a mundane Egyptian burial scroll once we finally managed to translate hieroglyphics. These and other beliefs have been falsified, and yet are resistant (or even immune) to reason or confrontation with facts, and so defintiely qualify as "delusion."
Scientology is the new kid on the block, and has beliefs that are so different from mainstream religions that most people tend to consider them crazy (Tom Cruise doesn't help matters, of course). Galactic Emperor Xenu? Body Thetans? Brainwashed souls of aliens who were executed by dumping them in the Hawaiian volcanoes and then setting off Hydrogen bombs on them?! Here we blur the line again with "delusion" and "faith." Scientologist E-Meters measure electrical resistance, nothing more. There is no evidence of a Hydrogen bomb ever having been detonated in Hawaii. Some of their beliefs are objectively falsified, and would qualify for the clinical definition of delusion. But the evidence behind their beliefs is not what concerns most people when they regard Scientologists as deluded: the label is applied not because of objective falsification or clinical diagnosis, but rather due to incredulity.
For other examples, look at beliefs in fairies. Most people today would consider such a belief to be "deluded," but the fact is that fairies have not ever been falsified. They can't be - they're magic, so you can't find and test them. A few hundred years ago, belief in fairies was commonplace. Now, such beliefs have fallen out of the mainstream and are regarded as delusional.
This brings up another interesting note: the definition of "delusion" seems to require that a belief is false. But what about beliefs that are unfalsifiable, yet are resistant to reason or the presentation of facts?
Most people would probably agree that an honest belief in the Immaterial Pink Unicorn is delusional. But such an entity is inherantly unfalsifiable - it's immaterial, so there's no way to detect it. You can't prove a negative without proving an exclusionary positive, and tehre seems to be no way to exclude the IPU. Such a belief cannot qualify as false. But if the belief is resistant to reason or the presentation of facts (discussion of parsimony, lack of evidence, we all know the drill), does the belief qualify as faith, or as delusion? Or both?
Most people have faith in other inherantly unfalsifiable and unsupportable beliefs that are resistant to reason or teh presentation of facts (as most people have religious beliefs of one form or another). The defining line for classifyingthe IPU belief, then, seems to be personal or social credulity. If the specific belief is found to be socially acceptable, and is not met with immediate laughter or other incredulous responses, the belief will be considered to be faith. If most people respond with incredulity and mockery, the belief will be regarded as delusion.
I think, then, that the actual difference between faith and delusion is subjective, depending on social acceptance more than anything else. Not all faith is resistant to reason - Percy for example fully accepts the idea that his deistic leanings aren't rational, and he simply chooses to accept that and holds the beliefs anyway. Certainly not all faith is falsified - most is in fact unfalsifiable by nature. But even beliefs that meet the clinical definition of "delusion" can be regarded as "faith" if those beliefs are found to be socially acceptable. Beliefs that don't meet the clinical definition can still be regarded as "delusion" if they are found to be ridiculous or absurd by most of society.
When trying to maintain objectivity in comparing one belief to another, there is an obvious reluctance to equate two unsupported and unfalsifiable beliefs if one of the two beliefs is seen as absurd. Nobody wants their belief to be put in the "delusional" box with the ridiculous-sounding Immaterial Pink Unicorn, for example. Even if there is no real, objective difference between belief in the IPU and belief in (insert unsupportable and unfalsifiable belief here), the absurdity of pink unicorns necessitates resistance to any comparison.
We've had a lot of discussions around here lately about this issue. But when it comes down to it, regardless of the nature of evidence, whether subjective evidence exists, whether there is a 6th sense or whether commonality of belief actually suggests existence, the exact same forms of "evidence" can support any number of assertions, from undefinable and unknowable god(s) to Galactic Emperors to magic underwear to, yes, Immaterial Pink Unicorns. The defining difference in how each of those beliefs will be regarded depends on personal incredulity and social acceptance. If one belief is regarded as acceptable and the other is regarded as absurd, even if there is no objective difference between the two in terms of evidenciary support, there will be resistance to any such comparison because of the implication that one's own belief may be regarded as absurd as well by association.

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 277 of 279 (520312)
08-20-2009 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by Modulous
08-19-2009 6:04 PM


Re: epistemology (conclusion to the subtopic)
It doesn't seem (to the likes of us) like anyone could seriously propose a method of establishing truths about the world in this fashion, but Consensus gentium is essentially a potential criterion of truth.
Arguments aside - I think you have your answer Straggler, at least from one person - and I think this is what others are trying to argue too. "Clearly IPU is not real - nobody believes it is true - it's ridiculous", is probably something you've read the like of a few times in the past few months. I think that kind of sentence makes sense in light of this epistemological method of subjective experience + how other people interpret this experience.
Good post. And I have no problem with that in principle in some circumstances.
But when the claims in question require not only that we accept this "Consensus gentium" form of evidence but that we accept some sort of immaterial sixth sense with which we can somehow detect non-empirical entities in order that such "evidence" exist Vs empirically testable reasons for the same commonality of internal experiences .......
Then I see little difference between intentionally making things up and what all the evidence suggests are equally, if unintentionally, made up things. In terms of the reliability of conclusion at least.
Believability between the IPU and other gods may be different. Just like your diagrams. But reliability of conclusion? No.
And how much would any of us bet against a suitably charismatic individual given a "blank slate" population being able to inspire faith in the IPU that would not meet the medical criteria of "delusion" and would thus be genuine faith? Would the IPU then be suitably evidenced?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Modulous, posted 08-19-2009 6:04 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 278 of 279 (520418)
08-21-2009 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Kitsune
08-19-2009 4:38 AM


Re: Evasion - As Expected
What sort of hypothetical case are you talking about where the empirical result would be "unsatisfactory" to me?
Well, apparently, you don't seem to like it when our current empirical answers are "I don't know." The current empirical answer for "Is there a god?" likewise points to "Probably not, but we don't know for sure." You seem to assume this answer can't be right, or isn't right, and so look for another way of looking at the world that will give you a different answer.
And it works well in science -- but it is not the only way of perceiving.
You're right, any one and his brother can perceive the world anyway they want. The kicker is, different ways of perceiving lead to different levels of success, however you want to define that. The way that has produced the most success is Rational Empiricism. If you disagree with that assesment, please explain how another way of perceiving the world has lead to more understanding, advancement and greater quality of life.
The terms subjective and objective are philosophical positions, not given facts.
Incorrect. Objective means true for everyone, whether they see it, accept it, or want it, or not. Subjective means true for one person and quite probably different for most or every other person.
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.
I certainly understand the appeals of solipsism, but to me, while it makes an interesting mental exercise, it quickly leads nowhere. If we assume that our minds are all that is there, that the external world is an illusion, then it would seem to lead to nothing mattering, and could, in a slippery slope kind of fallacy-way, lead to pathological or psychopathic tendencies.
While I admit the possibility of a Matrix-like scenario, I am forced to live in the world I am presented with, whether it all exists on my mind or not, and assume that when other people interract with me, they really interract, and that there are things that are true independent of me. Again, this is the approach that has lead to the most advances and success in the world.
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.
Interestingly, I got INFJ as well.
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.
An interesting, but off-topic thing to consider is that people were claiming ghost or witch encounters, until about the 40s (I believe) when the term flying saucer was coined and alien visitation became a considered possibility. Quite quickly, people stopped claiming ghosts and witches influenced them and started claiming aliens and UFOs abducted them. It seems to me to be a mental construct that is looking for the current "accepted" way of expressing itself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Kitsune, posted 08-19-2009 4:38 AM Kitsune has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 279 of 279 (520545)
08-22-2009 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by Adminnemooseus
08-20-2009 12:10 AM


Closing now - Were some nice final messages
Some nice concluding messages happened. Also one reply to an earlier message.
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-20-2009 12:10 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024