Once again, I am doing some critical thinking about your comments within their content and context; as I understand it . . .
In my philosophical/scientific training, (With respect: You don't have any, and if you did it has been subverted by your subsequent dedication to an imaginary religion-based theology . . .) I refer the interested reader specifically to posts number 89, 97, and 167 in the topic "The Paradox That Science Was Forced to Ignore) I was taught that the earliest definition of a word was significant, (But as you are not bound either by definitions or scholarly conventions; what does that say? . . .) and that the best definitions were hierarchical, Quote from Wikipedia: A hierarchy (Greek: hierarchia (ἱεραρχία), from hierarches, "leader of sacred rites") is an arrangement of items (objects, names, values, categories, etc.) in which the items are represented as being "above," "below," or "at the same level as" one another. Abstractly, a hierarchy is simply an ordered set or an acyclic directed graph. (end quote) where a term is defined by first identifying a super-set, that contains that which is being defined. Then a subset is named, with the characteristics that separate it from the rest of the super-set. (in other words, the words you use can mean anything you want them to mean . . . or don't want them to mean; as the case may be . . .)
In the case of faith, an early ( . . .Biblical . . .) definition is that it is "evidence" (superset), of things unseen (subset). ( . . . you've got it backwards, but hey; word definitions don't apply . . .) For example, trees swaying (evidence) reflects the wind (unseen.) So, interpreting (e.g. adjusting one's golf stroke) swaying trees, for the wind one can not see, exemplifies the earliest definition of faith. (No kidding . . . ummm, What was Jesus' golf handicap then; if you don't mind me asking . . . .
Blind, or evidence-less, faith thus becomes a contradiction in terms. (Sure, and how convenient . . . especially for you . . . .)
In theology, (Now we are getting down to brass tacks, here . . .) I learned that such contradictions in terms are evidence for something else we cannot see, (As in our own self-deceptions, rationalizations, justifications and denial . . . .) an invisible enemy that is attempting to "darken counsel." (Indeed, they do: And keep people trapped in doubt, fear, ignorance, anger, false pride, dishonesty and greed, for instance . . . . but that is what religion feeds on, and thrives on . . . . the unquestioning blind faith of it's adherants in "theologians" like you . . .)
Now, self-delusion is defined by the super-set of delusion where the sub-set is restricted to situations where the instigating entity is oneself. It refers, I believe, to the misinterpreting of something one actually sees, because of subjective pressures. (Apparently you don't understand self-delusion very well either: And being self-deluded, why would you? Quote: from wikipedia: A delusion is a false belief held with absolute conviction despite superior evidence. Unlike hallucinations, delusions are always pathological (the result of an illness or illness process). As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, dogma, stupidity, poor memory, illusion, or other effects of perception. . . .)
Not unlike faith in operation, but the one gets evidence that is surely stemming from something truly out there, such as the wind. The other gets evidence, but only to support a "selfish" and possibly unreal opinion, also about something unseen. (Of course: We are always blind to our own self delusions: That is their nature . . . who wants to admit that they are being stupid, or that something they held as a core belief about their "reality" is in essence; a lie? We'd much rather not admit our ignorance or our stupidity about religious theology, for instance . . . )
But how can we "know" whether we have one or the other? How can we know "wind" is real, but our, say, faithful spouse is unreal? We have to get more relevant evidence, or grow in faith. ( . . . Well first of all one needs to open one's mind to the possibility of error or ignorance in the first place. In other circumstances we just get tired of being lied to, or lying to ourselves . . . ) We must increase our experience, and our understanding of how any evidence might reflect what we cannot see. (or in this case, simply ignore any evidence we don't want to see . . .) But, we must (Actually, "we" don't really need to do anything . . .) turn away from our subjective pressures (Other people's opinions and value judgements. . .) to gather and interpret ( . . . different . . .) evidence that supports what we (stubbornly, unquestioningly, dogmatically, stupidly . .) want to think is true. In spite of all evidence to the contrary . . . We have to be "scientific." ( i.e. rational: . . . if only you actually were . . .)
As I studied science and theology, I was rather impressed how similar they are. (Personally I much prefer science to theology; because science deals more with reality, and theology is based on imagination becoming dogmatic doctrine and subsequent ideology . . .) Theology, I note, was once called "the queen of the sciences." (Really? By who and when, and how long ago? . . .) I was also impressed at how the historical foolishness of science was predicted by theology. ( . . . Really? . . . Well as the word "science" appears nowhere in the Bible, and as Sir Isaac Newton is given credit for "creating" the scientific method in the 1600's . . . some 1600 to 2100 years after the Books of the Bible were written; where does that leave us? . . . ) Scientific explanations (there are no sensible predictions that I know of--just ad hoc explanantions) of religion are less impressive. (At this point I am totally unimpressed . . . Since when does science attempt to explain religious theology? . . .It repudiates much of it; doesn't it? ) But science does fairly well theologically. (As religion is terrified of the dreaded "S" word; In what manner, if you don't mind me asking . . . . ?)
But, as predicted by (self-deluded theologists) theology (and Diogenes) ( . . . Diogenes made predictions? . . .) self-delusion ( . . . obviously you haven't the faintest idea of what the word as defined above even means . . . or you simply do not want to know . . . and why am I not at all surprised about that . . .) ( . . . is especially rampant in religion . . .) rampant in both religion and science, (but not science . . .) as these are ( . . . antithetical . . .) human institutions.
So, any subsequent thoughts or comments . . .?