Is faith synonymous with self-delusion?

Hi TC,

From my position as an Atheist and as a inquisitive person by nature I am curious in regards to the logic and reasoning that one needs in order to commit there life to a belief in God.

I'm not religious, don't speak for the religious, haven't really studied religious with any seriousness, and thus am surely not qualified to address this question. But it's such a great question, I'd like to give it a go anyway. You've asked for logic and reasoning, so that's what we'll do, not quoting from the Bible etc. Here we go...

-------------

POINT ONE:

Religion is the largest cultural event in human history. Billions of people, over thousands of years, in every culture of the world, have concluded that religion enhances their lives.

Given that we don't personally know the overwhelming vast majority of these people, it seems we must grant that they are the authority on what enhances their own lives.

Even after we set aside all those who are only nominally religious, those who have been forced to be religious and so forth, we are still left with a huge group of people who can authoritatively state that they have chosen religion, and it has enhanced their lives. These people could possibly form the largest single group in human history.

These facts don't in any way prove the cosmological assertions of any religion, but they do strongly suggest that approaching the subject with an open mind would be a logical act.

-------------

POINT TWO:

It's perhaps wise to recall that religion is thousands of years older than science. This is a simple fact which reason can easily accommodate.

Science is the sharp young 23 year old guy just graduating from college, whereas religion is his gray bearded grandfather. It's indisputable that ScienceGuy is one very clever young man, but his gray bearded religious grandfather has been around a very long time, and seen very many things.

Using only logic, we can reasonably propose that Grandpa Religion in his maturity may have insights in to human nature that young ScienceGuy can not reasonably be expected to yet grasp.

Well, like what?

Consider the M&M candy. A thin hard outer shell on the surface covers a much larger soft and squishy middle.

In his experienced wisdom, Grandpa Religion sees that the thin hard shell on the surface of our lives is tidy reason, while the much larger soft and squishy middle is chaotic emotion.

An emotion volcano. It has it's source deep deep underground in the subconscious, and most of it is hidden from view. We only see the small part of it that erupts on the surface. And this small part eruption is an awesome spectacle indeed!

At it's best, Grandpa Religion is realistic, unlike it's young grandson ScienceGuy who is still a bit naive, dreamy and idealistic. Please note the wonderful irony here.

Religion sees that the majority of what it is to be human is the soft inside of the M&M candy. Religion sees that deep in our subconscious, in places where we would dare not go, if we even knew those places were there, we are absolutely terrified of death.

Religion attempts to reach past the thin hard shell of reason on the surface, to the much larger hidden reality lying underneath.

At it's best, religion attempts to be the comforting mothering hand that speaks to this deep place in reassuring ways.

If we were literally in the hospital dying of cancer, our own real mother would do the same thing. She would tell us everything will be alright, even if she didn't know what will happen next.

We can question the logical validity of this operation. We are free to do that.

But again, the fact is that billions of people over thousands of year in every culture of the world have found this operation to be useful to them. Religion has a proven record of usefulness than can not be disputed.

In his ambitious inexperience, young ScienceGuy thinks he can plug the emotion volcano with a logic textbook. There is really very little evidence this is true.

Please watch, while young ScienceGuy works himself up in to an impatient fury arguing with his religious friends. The emotion volcano is still there, larger and more real than any logic textbook will ever be.

At the bottom of the emotion volcano, at it's source, is the very real fear of death. Grandpa Religion is realistic, and knows that this is where the real action is.

Faith without belief requires a certain delusion. I have faith that the sun will rise again tomorrow. I have faith I will be alive tomorrow to see it. You can question one with ease but the other has a certain certainty about it. Faith in it self is not questioned but the belief from where that faith originates.

Is “faith” synonymous with “self-delusion”?

To my mind, the answer is obvious at once that the two words are not synonymous. Nonetheless, I do think that there is something of philosophical interest that the OP points to, and perhaps the question does require some analysis to make my point and to make clear what there is of interest in the OP.

There are two senses of the word “synonymy”. The first is the strict logical sense, in that both words can be freely substituted in sentences without affecting the truth value and the sense that most competent language speakers will freely and symmetrically interchange them in most cases because the two sentences would mean the same thing. I will call them logical synonymy and ordinary synonymy respectively. I realize that I some people may object to the condition of symmetry that I impose and I agree that it may be too stringent as a common definition. Nonetheless, I don’t see how we can avoid getting bogged down in issues of vagueness without it.

I think it is clear that the sense of the word “self-delusion” that can be considered synonymous, prima fascia, with the word “faith, can only be that a person willfully believes a false proposition, and in this case is synonymous, both ordinarily and logically with “self deception.” A person who willfully creates a delusion in himself, in the pathological sense, is a little hard to imagine, and, if it is possible, would not resemble faith. I submit that a person who is self deceived, if it is possible, can be described as self-deluded, but a deluded person, in the pathological sense, would not be described as self-deceived. It is possible that someone could try and claim that faith is delusional, but he would not be able to establish this by simply appealing to the meanings of words. Many delusional people have elaborate reasons for their delusional beliefs and as such do not have faith in their delusions. Many people with faith, if not most people with faith, are clearly not delusional. Still, there may be a case for faith being a form a self deception. But first let’s look at the word “faith.” “Faith” can mean simply confidence in something. So, if the OP is correct, the two following sentences would mean the same thing:
1. Jerry had faith that his child would do well in school.
2. Jerry was deceiving himself that his child would do well in school.
It is quite clear that the previous sentences do not mean the same thing or could be interchanged in different contexts.
So, logically and ordinarily the words “faith” and “self-deception” are not synonymous.

I strongly suspect that the person who first asked this question was inspired by the paper by Rey titled, Meta-atheism… In that paper Rey argued that a person who professed a belief in god, with some qualifications, was in fact self-deceived. I would argue that, in this case, the question distorts Rey’s suspicion, in that professing a belief in god when compared to the individual’s actions suggested that the person did not in fact, believe what was professed. This, I think, is a different case than professing to have faith in a proposition that is demonstrably false.

A person who disregards evidence and willfully believes the opposite will continue to behave as if the professed proposition is true. Rey’s observation is that people who profess to believe in god do not act as if they do. Are these cases different or merely two sides of the same coin? I suspect that, for the purpose we are considering, they are two different cases, and it would be helpful if we concentrated on the specific case of someone professing a belief that does not influence their behavior. If the cases turn out to be different then so much the better, but, even if they are two sides of the same coin, concentrating on the side that most closely resembles what we are interested in should help to keep the discussion on point.

It is for this reason that I find the examples of a woman disregarding the infidelity of her husband and the patient denying the cancer to be inappropriate. Both are behaving consistently with the truth of their professed belief. A religious person, on the other hand, professes a belief in god and yet behaves inconsistently with that belief.
Religious belief in the west is more akin to a woman taking good prenatal care then bearing a child while continuing to profess her virginity. Ironically, Christians seem to be more successful at emulating the Madonna rather than Christ.

This important post deserves more attention.

It draws us back to two foundational issues: How do we define "faith" and "self-delusion." And, the danger in the notion of hypocrisy, classically demonstrated by those who say they subscribe to one set of rules or values, but in fact often act according to a different set, without apology.

If these foundations are abandoned, there is no hope, in either philosophy or "religion" (I mean spirituality) of there being any satisfactory answer to this question. Discussing the question, while not standing on these foundations, is, according to philosophy, having a life "not worth living."

An implicit concept in the question is truth. How do we define truth? The brothers on the street will tell you that truth is, "What it iiissss!" Not bad. Einstein defined it as "what stands the test of experience." My personal operational definition is that truth is the set of all declarative statements whose logical consequences are not falsified by evidence. Truth is the stuff that is, and that is happening, in the universe, that left to itself, will continue on a course according to it's own rules. Hence, I remember to "Get the truth before the truth gets me." Truth (example, an idea whose time has come) happens. If I know what, in truth, is going to happen, then I can prepare, be there or somewhere else according to whether it is good news or bad news, engage in actions that modify the course of truthful events.

As a philosopher, I do not like dictionaries that give more than one definition for a word. (Sorry, Youngfool). Algebra taught me that, to solve a problem, I must use variables, words, that have one and only one definition. Granted, humans have many ways that they use a word. These are the humans who have gotten us into a world and times where the only thing we agree on is that things are not the way they are supposed to be. The best philosophers I know compare clinging to the foolishness of every man to his own words, as the Humpty dumpty syndrome. It is asking for an irreparable fall and mess.

And, the danger of self-delusion, self-deception, hubris, etc demands that, to really be safe, I need to proceed with many counselors, some of whom I regard as older and wiser than myself, mentors actually.

As used in framing this thread, faith is defined as dogmatic opinionation, holding a thought in ones mind as true without a plan to let authority, art, evidence, history, humor, intuition, or transcendence change their mind. This list is the historical report of philosophy on the useful ways one can let their mind be changed. Those who have yielded to any, or any combination, of these inputs, have prospered, and led honorable lives. Those who insist on reason alone have a dismal track record, that has led to the shameful term "rationalization." Everybody but them knows that their hubris, or cowardice, or arrogance, is behind their "logic."

Self-delusion, as defined here, is brilliantly analyzed above by Gadfly. Youngfool's contribution is also useful, in that he separates the person clinging to a known lie (self deception) from the one who intentionally (and pathologically) puts a wrong spin on something that is true. Self-delusion is regarded as sick, because it is supposed that the healthy mind naturally or spiritually inclines towards life and what they deep down inside think of as truth. Trivers work on self-deception reveals it as a strategy to lie successfully, while keeping a known lie hidden from all (even oneself, temporarily) deep within. Away from the decieved neighbor, one can retrieve the truth for one's own successful living.

But, the self-deluded apparently have no such recovery, The false spin appears to stain the truth irrevocably, and it is lost to it's holder. Then, they go on to live believing the world is going to do things that it will not, and they are lost, dishonorably, to history, and to themselves. As Socrates put it, their life is not worth living.

Faith, as defined by the OP, leads to self-delusion. They are not synonymous, as Godfly astutely notes, but they are so closely tied in cause and effect as to be almost so. The "self" part comes from the choice of being a coward, or arrogant, and choosing to live by one's own unmodified thinking instead of by what philosophy has determined are wiser ways. All of the philosophical rules guide into experiences that perforce change ones mind, wisely and honestly. The Socratic mentor, a trustworthy authority, makes (yes he does!) you think about things you have been avoiding thinking about. And, so pondering his questions, your mind changes profitably, without your integrity being diminshed. Good evidential science forces (yes, it does!) to look at data, evidence, that as it's reality sinks in, causes your mind to change, profitably, honestly, with preserved integrity.

But, our self can choose to cling to our reason and existing set of experiences, so that we can be and stay deluded, can safely put our spin on whatever truth we see around us, making wrong-headed conclusions. And so, we self-delude and destroy ourselves.

But, those with philosophical integrity will define faith differently. They will follow the well established rule of looking at early definitions, which call faith "evidence," and "substance." While admitting that the foolish masses which have gotten us into this mess are thoughtlessly using the word otherwise, they who are the philosophic leaders need to set a better example. There is a practise of collecting evidence which is logically connected to the unseen parts of the universe. These unseen parts are just as true as the seen parts, just as useful, or dangerous. This has long been called faith, and ought to still be the meaning of that word. We strongly suspect that an inner sense of trust changes the rate at which we succeed. Listen to Tim Tebow talk about the transformation towards success of the Denver Broncos! Look at the effectiveness of placebos! The "trust" part of even the twisted definition stays true. But we have a word for the OP's "faith." It is dogma. It bends reality towrds self-destruction, not success.

What will we call the acquisition of trust from evidence of things unseen? What shall we call a confident sense that we can find a way (substance) to solve a problem we hope to solve? We ought, in philosophical integrity, use the word faith for these. It is the trust that comes to us when we courageously face the data that will change our minds, when we stir up the hope that we can find a way to succeed.

So, yes, we can define faith so that it is closely tied to self-delusion. But we do so at our peril. Those who do so will be like Humpty-Dumpty, will fall, and be irreparably broken.

Hello All.

I would recommend You doing a search on Google for "Nascar smoking hot Wife invocation".
It should put a smile on your face regardless of whether you are religious or not.
You may want to make comments later.

Regards and best of the season to one and all!

Hi again.



I think we have to be faithful to the definitions of words, I do not think is right to use a word expressing more than the definition of the word. Faith is to believe in something without proof, faith can be rational or irrational, the religious are capable of having a rational faith just as the not religious are capable of having an irrational faith. If we are to say that someone has faith, we are not specifying weather it is a rational faith or an irrational one, so, if we want to express that someone has an irrational faith, the right thing is to add the right word to do so, for example, “this guy has an “irrational” faith. We're not suppose to leave the right understanding of the thing we want to express to someone else intuition or right understanding of the context of the conversation.

So, is faith synonymous with self-delusion?, not by definition of the word. Of c0urse some people use the word faith to express a faith irrational in quality, but that is not proper nor right.


Oxford Definition

Faith

1complete trust or confidence in someone or something: this restores one’s faith in politicians
2strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof: bereaved people who have shown supreme faith

neither of the definitions has irrationality as a quality of faith, the quality of the faith remains unspecified in both definitions.
To believe that faith is synonymous with self-delusion would be like believing that to run means to run slow or fast, forward or backward ; running is a word that expresses an action but it doesn't reveal any quality of the action. The same with faith.
The conclusion is that Faith is to believe without knowing the truth, not knowing the truth do not imply absence of evidence, faith can be rational or irrational, we have to specify weather we mean one or the other. Faith is not synonymous with self-delusion, although having faith in something could be a self-delusion.


Hope that I made myself understood, Spanish is my first language, so I apologize for any grammatical mistake.

Greetings.

Hi Luis, faith in the sun rising does not require much evidence but believing in deity requires so much more. So much more than faith could or should enjoy. Faith is the admittance that the evidence is suspect and is open to question. A theist depends on faith not evidence. So is he or she deluded?

1) Theists believe in the ability of holy books to address questions of infinite scale.

2) Atheists believe in the ability of reason to address questions of infinite scale.

3) Both of these beliefs are faith, because neither are supported by evidence.

What is a delusion is any notion that theists and atheists are fundamentally different. The truth is, they are fundamentally the same. They differ only in the authority they choose to have blind faith in.

Hi Typist,

What about a theist who's ”blind faith” is based on reason and logic? What catergory would you put them into?

1) Theists believe in the ability of holy books to address questions of infinite scale.

2) Atheists believe in the ability of reason to address questions of infinite scale.

3) Both of these beliefs are faith, because neither are supported by evidence.

What is a delusion is any notion that theists and atheists are fundamentally different. The truth is, they are fundamentally the same. They differ only in the authority they choose to have blind faith in.

It is not blind faith to question a description of a particular god. I have no evidence to contest other than what I propose and as I have not proposed, how can that be faith driven?

-- Updated Sat Dec 24, 2011 10:56 am to add the following --

Hi Typist,

What about a theist who's ”blind faith” is based on reason and logic? What catergory would you put them into?

But Fanman you clearly will not let us examine your logic or reasoning. As soon as a pertinent question is posed you scamper away refusing to continue the investigation.

Hi Xris,

Scamper away? Not at all. I just don't see the point in holding or continuing a debate where the contributors will never meet on common ground, due to having polar perspectives and opinions. My logic and reasoning are clear to see in my previous posts. And can easily be examined.

Typist Wrote:
What is a delusion is any notion that theists and atheists are fundamentally different. The truth is, they are fundamentally the same. They differ only in the authority they choose to have blind faith in.

I would respectfully dis-agree with this statement as being far to sweeping.
A person not being aware of a certain belief, being confronted with this belief, has an option to accept it or not.
Now if that person only accepted things known to be provable before, something not requiring a belief, that person could just continue on that path without a belief being involved.
As for myself, when I broke with my previous belief, I did not therefore all of a sudden accept all scientific theories, I am still careful to state only those facts accepted to be proven, and the rest as interesting conjecture.
There are many like me who simply admit there is much we do not know, perhaps un-knowable .
Normal everyday belief is something we all share,
So no, It is by no means an automatic that not believing in a religious belief, that therefore you have to have a comparable other belief.

Regards, John.

Hi Xris,

Scamper away? Not at all. I just don't see the point in holding or continuing a debate where the contributors will never meet on common ground, due to having polar perspectives and opinions. My logic and reasoning are clear to see in my previous posts. And can easily be examined.

Your logic is not to be examined only displayed. Simple questions that you constantly ignore give rise to the opinion your not here to debate but to preach. You start to debate but suddenly shy away refusing to continue. A great tactic if it was not so damned obvious.

Hi Xris,

Take it easy, I'm not preaching to anyone. I am only sharing my opinion as I choose to.

Hi Xris,

Take it easy, I'm not preaching to anyone. I am only sharing my opinion as I choose to.

Fanman,
that's my problem. You choose what you want and ignore anything that threatens your faith. You remind me of the converters that knock on my door who like to quote scripture but refuse to enter into serious debate. Once they are confronted they walk away. I have friends who I know are deeply religous but we never speak of god. If you display your colours you need to defend them. When I was of the faith at least I was courageous enough to defend it. The simplest of questions are the most important to maintain or loose your faith.Thanks xris

Hi Xris,

You're entitled to your opinion about me.