Is faith synonymous with self-delusion?

Hello all;

I find it interesting that apparently delusions prevent us from dealing with "reality". However, I am also of the opinion that we each "create" our own reality; especially when engaged in conversation about someone else's "reality".

We all need to beleive in, or have faith in something.

So, to clarify what at least some of us might be talking about here: Is faith in the "God" of fundamental orthodox religion synonymous with being self-deluded about the existence of the "God" of fundamental orthodox religion?

I say that based on the proof of the scientific, reasonable, rational, logical evidence available; "Yes, it is". Furthermore, I would suggest that based on the evidence of conditions in society; religion itself is little more than a set of superstitions based on ritual, dogma, doctrine and (ignorant) ideologies.

Remember that the dogma, doctrine and ignorant ideologies that most adherents justify by their mantra-like "The Bible is the "Word of God"; and that is what it says in the Bible" probably haven't even read the Bible for themselves, or by themselves. If they have, they most certainly have not thought at all about, or resolved; all the readily apparent self-contradictions contained in the Bible.

The Bible says many things and can readily be used to justify any belief; regardless how deluded, contradictory, superstitious, ignorant, prejudiced, intolerant and bigoted that belief may be. And it usually is.

That is my very simple "reality" about the Bible. As for the non-existent, psychotic, paranoid schizophrenic "God" of religion and especially the Old Testament?

Well, that last sentence speaks for itself.

Ultimately I believe that faith is related to self-delusion when an irrational belief system is used to construct an opinion, which one perceives as a truth. Therefore one could argue that faith is synonymous with self-delusion, if the above is that instance of irrational faith. Faith therefore can be considered as a possible seed of a potential self-delusion.

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, .

Perhaps it is the fact that Spanish is your first language, but this could be a most dangerously confusing statement.

The difficult word is "proof." Technically, and especially in a philosophy forum, proof applies only to something that happens in mathematics, where given certain specifications and assumptions, a certain result is proven to follow. Thus, wherever those conditions apply, the result is "proven" to follow.

Now, the mathematics associated with belief or faith include Bayes theorem, where the plausibility of an idea, conditional on the existence or presence of certain evidence, is analyzed. In that mathematical system, an underlying assumption is that anything is possible, and nothing is certain. It appies in a world where there does not exist any statement that is has probability/plausibility of zero (Impossible!) or one (It's a fact!). In this world, the theorem proves how to estimate changes in the plausibility status of an idea, as evidence is brought to bear. One can prove that, in the world to which the theorem applies, an idea has a given plausibility, and can be proven to be "true beyond reasonable doubt", to use the legal phrase.

Then there is the problem of the definition of faith. The earliest defintion, which uses the philosophically sound method of assigning hierarchical categories, sets, with defining characteristics, is that

"faith is evidence of things unseen."

This preceded the Oxford dictionary by 1500 years. In this definition, there exists a super set called evidence, which includes any experience we might think of as evidence: anecdotal evidence, historical evidence, scientific evidence, whatever.

Within that set, there is evidence that is used to make inferences about things one cannot see. The trees sway, and we use that as evidence that there is wind, This evidence, in the original sense of the word, is faith.

Experiencing and thinking about such evidence always changes ones sense of trusting an idea. Seeing the ripples in the water, which look like wind-caused ripples, we more trustingly put up the sails.

Using Bayes theorem as a set of reasoning, one can get such faith from evidence. This would be your rational faith.

One can also trust in an idea from the premise, "It is my opinion, and it is very, very true." Completely irrational, entirely subjective. Some (not me) would call that faith. Why? To make such a call destroys the original definition of the word faith, and makes the word, trust, irrelevant. Can we really afford this?

No, you might say, "In our modern world, and trusting in the Oxford dictionary, faith is often used to rename trust in an idea for which there is no proof, whatever that means. Probably, no evidence that the majority finds convincing." This is God-awful philosophy.

So, "faith is to believe in something without proof?" Not so helpful. To trust in things like the Oxford dictionary (basically an historical report of human intellectual laziness, stupidity, and gullibility in the use of words) is not going to get us what we want from life, that our having words is for. We hope for better.

Hello Groktruth.

I have noticed You really like the Hebrew 11 text and have made much of the word "evidence".
Here is a look at that verse and that word in the following quote.

By saying that it is the "evidence" or "assurance" (the word can literally be translated "title deed," but "assurance" seems to be the best all-around word) of things hoped for, the author comes much closer to defining what faith is. In its simplest form, faith is merely belief. As our understanding becomes more complex and operative, when we begin to put faith to work, it becomes "confidence," and finally, in its best form, when it becomes fully operational, it is "trust." This trust, this full measure of faith, is alive and works within our relationship with God.

To me proof and assurance are extremely close.

Regards, John.

Read more: http://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fus ... z1hVQ7QAcZ

Hi Groktruth, I'm sure our disagreement wont lead us to disrespect each other.

You're right about the word proof, proof is something that exists only in the field of mathematics, but still, I think is evident that with “to have faith is to believe in something without “proof”” I do not mean a mathematical proof for the believe, so, with proof I mean : “1 [mass noun] evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement: you will be asked to give proof of your identity [count noun]: this is not a proof for the existence of God” , I guess we can see this kind of proof, which is not a mathematical one, as evidence that establishes the veracity of the believe. If I ever talk about a mathematical proof or theorem, you'll know. If there's anything obscure in my comment, please try to obtain some clarity with the context.


So, you said: “faith “is” evidence of things unseen”, I believe that with “unseen” you mean “not known”. But still, I do not think that faith “is” evidence of things unknown or unseen, to have faith is synonymous with to believe, that believe or faith can be evidence based or not. So, I would say that faith is “to believe in something unseen or unknown”, which is the same as “to believe in something without proof”, again, I'm not talking about a theorem, better said, “to have faith is to believe in something without evidence that establishes completely ( the word completely is superfluous, but it'll help make things clear) the veracity of the believe, also, the absence of evidence capable of establishing the veracity of the believe, do not imply the absence of evidence, faith can be evidence based or not.


You said : “One can also trust in an idea from the premise, "It is my opinion, and it is very, very true." Completely irrational, entirely subjective. Some (not me) would call that faith. Why? To make such a call destroys the original definition of the word faith, and makes the word, trust, irrelevant. Can we really afford this?” . I would call that faith, a faith that's not evidence based, but still faith, as I said, to have faith is to believe without proof (not a theorem); I do not see any contradiction, I do not see how it destroys the definition of faith.
The definition of trust is: Firm belief in the reliability, truth, ability, or strength of someone or something, I do not see any difference between faith, trust, conviction or believe. Of course that some of the words have other meanings or better said, other senses, but it is evident that they all have a sense in common, which is to believe; to trust; have conviction; to have faith.

Now, if I quote the Oxford dictionary, I do it because it claims to be an authority or the authority of the English language, sure it has some critics, but still, the Oxford dictionary is seen by many as the authority of the English language. Either way, I do believe we need to have established meanings for words, we need to have an organized language in order to express ourselves with clarity, I believe this to be an axiom.

The god debate seems to be present in any language, I do not mind, but still, I see faith as an action or state present in every human, so, I do not believe that we need to debate the existence of god, the authority of the bible or anything similar to debate what faith is or is not.


I'm a deist, that is to say that I believe in the existence of a god creator, I believe that the natural universe give us enough evidence to establish the veracity of the existence of a god, the universe is too complex to be a product of chance, we can even notice that in a snowflake. There is just too much math in the universe to deny the existence of a mathematical being, the universe is governed by geometry; I'm not capable of believing in the non-existence of god, for that I would need to be more emotional and less rational. Even though I believe in a god, I do not believe there is evidence in the natural world to finger point the bible god as the god creator.

Well, I hope I made myself clear in a respectful way.


Greetings.

It is not blind faith to question a description of a particular god. .

Upon what does one base such questioning?

If one bases one's challenge upon some other holy book, one should be prepared to demonstrate that this holy book is qualified to analyze questions the size of god (something proposed to lie at the heart of all reality). If this holy book can not provide evidence of such an ability, belief in it is faith.

Now just take "holy book" in the paragraph above, and replace it with "reason".

If you are going to challenge a description of god using reason, you have to first provide evidence that human reason is currently in a position to address the issue of what is or isn't at the heart of all reality.

You don't even know what "all of reality" is. None of us do. NASA has no clue whatsoever, and states this honestly.

You belief in reason's ability to address this particular question is based on faith. You have no evidence human reason is qualified to understand all of reality. None. You just assume this, without realizing you are assuming. Thus the label "blind" faith.

Most theists realize their belief is based on faith. Most atheists don't. That's the main difference between them.

Most theists realize their belief is based on faith. Most atheists don't. That's the main difference between them.

Nothing can be "based on" faith, exactly, because faith doesn't have it's own substance in that way. Faith enables X, Y, Z...myriad different beliefs.

A Christian belief and a secular humanist one (for example) both require an element of faith, but both are "based on" much more besides.

Thanks for the edit Invictus, I agree my choice of words was sloppy.

It seems the theist and atheist use the same basic procedure, an unjustified leap from the local level to the ultimate level.

It's surely true that both holy books and reason have proven very valuable to the lives of very many people. It's easy to make a case for the relevance and usefulness of both holy books and reason, at the local level.

Then it's assumed that this assertion of usefulness can be expanded to include all of reality. It rarely seems to occur to folks that we haven't the slightest idea what the phrase "all of reality" actually refers to.

As example, if the universe we know about is 78% of all of reality, then it's fairly reasonable to assume the laws of reason and physics etc apply to the 22% of the universe we haven't seen yet.

But what if the universe we know about is .00000000000000032% of all of reality? In that case, it wouldn't make sense to assume that such a small sample represents the entirety.

It seems straightforward to demonstrate that all of us, theist and atheist, are united in ignorance, and that the big divide and debate that's been going on for centuries is an excellent example of self delusion.

What's even more interesting, imho, is that once we see this, it won't change our behavior at all.

Thanks for the edit Invictus, I agree my choice of words was sloppy.

It seems the theist and atheist use the same basic procedure, an unjustified leap from the local level to the ultimate level.

It's surely true that both holy books and reason have proven very valuable to the lives of very many people. It's easy to make a case for the relevance and usefulness of both holy books and reason, at the local level.

Then it's assumed that this assertion of usefulness can be expanded to include all of reality. It rarely seems to occur to folks that we haven't the slightest idea what the phrase "all of reality" actually refers to.

As example, if the universe we know about is 78% of all of reality, then it's fairly reasonable to assume the laws of reason and physics etc apply to the 22% of the universe we haven't seen yet.

But what if the universe we know about is .00000000000000032% of all of reality? In that case, it wouldn't make sense to assume that such a small sample represents the entirety.

It seems straightforward to demonstrate that all of us, theist and atheist, are united in ignorance, and that the big divide and debate that's been going on for centuries is an excellent example of self delusion.

What's even more interesting, imho, is that once we see this, it won't change our behavior at all.

In my previous post I referred to the examples of Christian belief and Secular Humanist belief in order to emphasise the shared necessity of the element of faith in all forms of belief system. In light of your response, it's worth stressing that religious belief and reason are not in opposition and do not necessarily lead in different directions. Reason is necessary for a sane understanding of God, after all. Just as theology properly practised can still be called the Queen of Sciences.

You're right that everyone is united in ignorance, but that's not because of self-delusion, rather we are united in our ignorance - in a limited sense - simply because we are not omniscient and thus must make a leap of faith at some point if we are to erect or adhere to any mode of thinking.

In light of your response, it's worth stressing that religious belief and reason are not in opposition and do not necessarily lead in different directions.

I was referring to a longstanding debate between theists and atheists.

I would be interested in reading you develop your point here further. What common direction might religious belief and reason share?

I'm quite interested in a meeting ground between theism and atheism. This is my own little self delusion, the goofy idea that any of those involved in the debate might want a meeting ground.

You're right that everyone is united in ignorance, but that's not because of self-delusion,

Right, agreed. The self delusion I was referring to is the idea that we are in a position to come to conclusions regarding what is or isn't at the heart of reality etc. The endless debate is fueled by this self delusion, imho. The whole debate is premised on the assumption that somebody knows, or could know.

It's hardly longstanding! It's been an erratic conflict between religious ideas and secular ideas since the Enlightenment, occurring not just in Europe but South America, Asia, Africa, Turkey, and the Middle East, then in the last...ten years or so(?), has become a confused and wrongheaded 'debate' between Christians and New Atheists. A debate staged pretty much just in the UK and USA, with little significant change in continental Europe, let alone further afield. Nonetheless, it's a debate that's contributed to such a muddying of the wanters that in spite of efforts to the contrary, I still find myself inadvertently muddling up my terms!

Reason is a necessary for pretty much all beliefs, as is faith, and both reason and faith are components of belief systems which happen to contain a deity and those which do not.

There is no Religion vs. Reason. It's like comparing a pear to an apple core. Similarly, it was misleading for me to say "...religious belief and reason are not in opposition and do not necessarily lead in different directions.". They are not in opposition, because the latter is a component of the former, so that's fine, but I was confusing the matter when I said they don't necessarily lead in different directions.

It would be clearer to say that faith and reason are complimentary and necessary for any belief, and that theology and science are complimentary, as are religious belief and scientific endeavour.

So, summing up.

belief* = faith + reason

*theist or atheist or agnostic or whatever, it doesn't matter.

Invictus wrote:
belief* = faith + reason
*theist or atheist or agnostic or whatever, it doesn't matter.


I think that the above only works if we assume only one meaning of belief.
It seems to me there two quite distinct meaning of this word. One belief is based on past experience and the other indicates a suspension of disbelief.
So these differing meanings are very different in human speech and intent.
Now without going to any writings about a God, the only way to prove that God exist is through circular reasoning, the way that Typist has done, by using a debatable view of nature and our universe, and then stating this could only have come from a God. So Typist shows no advancement over the caveman, who saw a God in everything He did not understand.
This requires a suspension of his disbelief unless he has had past experience with this God.

The other thing I have a problem with is just what is meant with "reason" in the case of the God believer.When faulty reasoning is used to make the claim of the existence of a God, is that logical or reasonable?

Regards, John.

Post Number:#197 From the overlapping topic: "Is There a God" Sun Dec 25, 2011 1:24 pm

Hello all;

RE:

Youngfool wrote: First of all, just notice how the inclusion of the elipsis have the tendency or the effect of taking the "quote" out of context; Presumably to serve your own somewhat unreasonable, irrational, illogical (deluded) purposes. The missing text is: " So, to clarify what at least some of us might be talking about here: does the "God" of fundamental orthodox religion exist?:

[...]I say that based on the proof of the scientific, reasonable, rational, logical evidence available; "No, it does not". Furthermore, I would suggest... Furthermore, I would suggest that based on the evidence of conditions in society; religion itself is little more than a set of superstitions based on empty, meaningless ritual, dogma, doctrine and (ignorant) ideologies.

Remember that the dogma, doctrine and ignorant ideologies that most adherents justify by their mantra-like "The Bible is the "Word of God"; and that is what it says in the Bible" probably haven't even read the Bible for themselves, or by themselves. If they have, they most certainly have not thought at all about, or resolved; all the readily apparent self-contradictions contained in the Bible.

The Bible says many things and can readily be used to justify any belief; regardless how deluded, contradictory, superstitious, ignorant, prejudiced, intolerant and bigoted that belief may be. And it usually is.

That is my very simple "reality" about the Bible. As for the non-existent, psychotic, paranoid schizophrenic "God" of religion and especially the Old Testament?

Well, that last sentence speaks for itself.

That's rather sweeping! Yes, I agree; it is: I think that humanity would be much better off if the God of fundamental orthodox religion(s) was simply swept out with the trash; along with their Bible.

By what process does the "logical evidence available" provide "proof" of the non-existence of God? Well, have you heard of any reasonable, rational, logical, fact-based scientific reports confirming the existence of the anthropomorphic / anthropocentric "God" of fundamental orthodox religions? Personally, I have not.

But if you have any provable, verifiable, reliable, consistent, scientific evidence of the existence of an anthropomorphic / anthropocentric "God"; please share.

Re:

Post Number:#195 Sun Dec 25, 2011 4:31 am

With regards to God being perfect, I think that as children, as infants and without any theological concensus whatsoever we are born "unadulterated" (pun intended) and spiritually perfect the general theological consensus With respect: I guess you just personally refuted (repudiated) the theological (religious) doctrine of original sin: You heretic. Personally, as I have already done that too: Good for you. As substantiation, please see the topic of the title "Doctrine of Original Sin and the Garden of Eden" as posted elsewhere on this forum. is that initially, we were created as perfect i.e. free from all imperfections. Once again, and with respect: Not according to the theological (religious) doctrine of original sin; but nevertheless, good for you. Accordingto religious dogma, doctrine, theology and (ignorant) ideology; It was mankind's fall from grace which led to our imperfection and subsequent dismissal from direct contact with divinity. This is the story of the old testament, Genesis to be exact. Uh huh: So, the story of Adam and Eve as interpreted literally is complete nonsense. For one thing, it completely ignores the fact that the Chinese culture predated Christianity by at least five thousand years; and quite possibly by 7000 years. So, obviously Adam and Eve were not the "first man and first woman" of (your) anthropomorphic / anthropocentric "God's" (being the "God" of the Bible and hence the "God" of (your) religion's) "creation".

You may as well ignore all the other anthropological evidence too; while you are at it.

Therefore we are dogmatically shown that it is the questioning and disobeying of a somewhat mean, cruel, barbaric, psychotic, paranoid schizophrenic God, which was initially done by Eve in relation to eating from the tree of knowledge . . . of good and evil, . . . or simply becoming human, that causes one to fall from grace, being a state of spiritual perfection so to speak. Furthermore if we look at our own fear based systems of law and authority, as fear based control, coercion or domination based on positive reward and negative punishment; and why would this not be the case, given the control and effect that religion and especially the "church(es)" have had on western systems of thought for the last say, 2000 years? we see that it is the same, in that if we question and disobey the law / authority of the law, we are subsequently punished and if our disobeying is judged to be severe, we are removed from our society. And if they are minor indiscretions, as were Adam and Eve's; we get to live full, rich, rewarding lives, outside of jail and possibly "death row". What was your point again?

Here we have an example of where life all around the world . . . ? is based upon the same system established in the book of Genesis, in relation to a literally non-existent; and how deluded is that? Adam and Eve breaking a law which God put in place, Right . . . which law was that again? and being excommunicated for their disobedience. Like I said, that mean, cruel, inhumane, psychotic, paranoid schizopohrenic "God" can be a real sh!t. "He" excommunicated even his own kids. Remember: You said it; not me.

Therefore, because this system of excommunication or inprisonment is still in use today, one can see the wisdom inhumane cruelty of God's system of punishment / dealing with disobedience. of his own kids. And somehow, as "Christians" we are proud of this? Give your head a compassionate, gentle, empathic, understanding, tolerant, intelligent, loving, kind, reasonable, and preferably sideways shake.

Now without going to any writings about a God, the only way to prove that God exist is through circular reasoning, the way that Typist has done, by using a debatable view of nature and our universe, and then stating this could only have come from a God. So Typist shows no advancement over the caveman, who saw a God in everything He did not understand.

Apologies John, but you appear to have completely misunderstood my posts. I have proposed no gods.

I welcome an analysis of my posts, challenging is a-ok too, but please respond to what I actually said, rather than making up stuff you wish I'd said.

Hello Typist.

My apologies.

I had just come from visiting a neighbor who pours generous drinks of the alcohol variety, so it would have been better had I stayed away from the puter.
It was my mistake attributing something to you stated by someone else.

Regards, John.