Is faith synonymous with self-delusion?

Hello all; and especially GroK:

Remember that, as regards biblical theology at least, "it is the glory of Kings to search out a matter," this is not Biblical theology: It is a direct quote: And as usual with you it is taken out of context. We have established that point in the topic "The Paradox That Science Was Forced to Ignore." and that there are many cautions about explaining too much. Right . . . as if you understand them or practice these cautions yourself. You can, if you want to know, research, on wikipedia even, most of the questions you raise. Thank you so much: In case you haven't noticed: I do. But aren't my opinions, in your opinion, "worthless" anyway? Whether or not I do some research? In any event: I most definitely am not going to subscribe to your opinions as being any better than mine.

Hello all; and especially GroK:

Remember that, as regards biblical theology at least, "it is the glory of Kings to search out a matter," this is not Biblical theology: It is a direct quote: And as usual with you it is taken out of context. We have established that point in the topic "The Paradox That Science Was Forced to Ignore." and that there are many cautions about explaining too much. Right . . . as if you understand them or practice these cautions yourself. You can, if you want to know, research, on wikipedia even, most of the questions you raise. Thank you so much: In case you haven't noticed: I do. But aren't my opinions, in your opinion, "worthless" anyway? Whether or not I do some research? In any event: I most definitely am not going to subscribe to your opinions as being any better than mine.

Yes, your opinions (and mine) are almost completely worthless to me, but you value them, and can search out the evidence I have pointed to as you seek to improve them. I get the most out of the opinions of those others who have proved themselves trustworthy, Thomas Bayes, for example, R.A.R. Tricker, Pascal, Jesus, Calvin, Patrick of Ireland.

Hello all; and especially "GroK"

Re:

Yes, your opinions (and mine) are almost completely worthless to me, Personally I think that your opinions are highly important to you: You have a very high opinion of your own opinion: And what "great possessions" indeed. but you value them, Actually I don't value your opinions: I just like parsing and critiquing them . . . and can search out the evidence I have pointed to What evidence have you ever pointed to? In spite of many requests to do so . . . as you seek to improve them. You just can't help but be arrogant and patronizing, can you? I get the most out of the opinions of those others who have proved themselves trustworthy, Thomas Bayes, for example, R.A.R. Tricker, Pascal, Jesus, Calvin, Patrick of Ireland. Noting that these others are long dead and gone: And what kind of mentor is that? But I also like the "Calvin and Hobbes" cartoons . . . .

Anyway: Unless you give me something more substantial to parse and critique: I'm done with you here now too.

Hello all; and especially "GroK"

Re:

Yes, your opinions (and mine) are almost completely worthless to me, Personally I think that your opinions are highly important to you: You have a very high opinion of your own opinion: And what "great possessions" indeed. but you value them, Actually I don't value your opinions: I just like parsing and critiquing them . . . and can search out the evidence I have pointed to What evidence have you ever pointed to? In spite of many requests to do so . . . as you seek to improve them. You just can't help but be arrogant and patronizing, can you? I get the most out of the opinions of those others who have proved themselves trustworthy, Thomas Bayes, for example, R.A.R. Tricker, Pascal, Jesus, Calvin, Patrick of Ireland. Noting that these others are long dead and gone: And what kind of mentor is that? But I also like the "Calvin and Hobbes" cartoons . . . .

Anyway: Unless you give me something more substantial to parse and critique: I'm done with you here now too.

Research Bible Codes, theomatics, prayer experiments, especially The Power of Prayer on Plants by Loehr, near death studies, correlations between natural disasters in the US and policy statements favoring Palestinians over israelis, results of tests of God with tithing, with seeking Him with all one's might, correlations between national prosperity and degree of biblical lawfulness, George Mueller and his English orphanage.

Hello all; and especially "GroK":

I'm done with you . . . .

Hello Scott and All.

After reading the last group of posts I think it very safe to say the answer is YES. When the religious enter the discussion it always seems to turn into a slugfest between them.
Now we should be glad we do not have representation from the over 20000 other "christian" denominations, on this site.
But suffice it to say that each of these is convinced their faith is "THE WAY".
If that is not proof of self-delusion, I do not know what would be.

Regards, John.

My question is simple. Is faith just another word for self-delusion? Or in another way of saying, if someone claims to believe something merely out of faith, is that person simply admitting to being in denial?

Faith as depicted by your examples would seem to be synonymous with delusion, but faith as defined by the writer of the letter to the Hebrews, is something different:
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
-- Hebrews 11:1

The faith spoken of here has substance, i.e. it has weight. Think of it like this: in any situation where you have placed on the scales all the evidence for and against a proposition, but the scales remain in balance, faith is what you throw on to tip the scales towards the outcome you prefer.

It is a completely rational approach to any problem not to continue in a state of indecision.

Cheers,
enegue

My question is simple. Is faith just another word for self-delusion? Or in another way of saying, if someone claims to believe something merely out of faith, is that person simply admitting to being in denial?

Faith as depicted by your examples would seem to be synonymous with delusion, but faith as defined by the writer of the letter to the Hebrews, is something different:
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
-- Hebrews 11:1

The faith spoken of here has substance, i.e. it has weight. Think of it like this: in any situation where you have placed on the scales all the evidence for and against a proposition, but the scales remain in balance, faith is what you throw on to tip the scales towards the outcome you prefer.

It is a completely rational approach to any problem not to continue in a state of indecision.

Cheers,
enegue

We scientists make a distinction between basic and applied science, referring to our motivation as we invest scientifically in a question. In basic science, we are driven by pure curiosity, with no conscious eye towards solving any recognized problem. But we argue that our curiosity is birthed in an intuitive sence that the discoveries we make will be useful in ways we can not presently fathom. When we do applied science, we have some problem in mind and are looking for a solution. In this, we discover how to use the findings of basic science.

The two parts to the Hebrews definition of faith parallel this distinction. Our foundational motivation is to fix some problem. We hope to see a satisfactory resolution. The applied science seeks such a substantive, effective solution. But, we recognize that an intuitive, basic, approach is often valuable in generating evidence that, once before us, makes the unseen parts of the problem manageable. Thus, faith works to get such evidence, of God at work, which when we have it (the experience with the evidence), we see how to substantively "save" in the troubling circumstances. Get what we were hoping for done.

Twisting the meaning of faith into dogmatic, evidence-less, opinion renders this wonderful, solution-finding, process impotent. So does equating it with self-delusion. Both the history of faith, and the history of science, are rich with examples of such foolishness.

I think if someone is believing in something in the face of strong or overwhelming contrary evidence an calling that belief "faith," one is delusional. However if evidence is lacking and one is honest about that and also believes out of "choice" and one calls that "faith," one is not delusional at all. Some may chose to not live by the second notion in favor of a strict rationality for their positions, but I don't think anyone can attack the second notion of faith because it is accompanied by both self and public honesty. I don't think anyone can level any charges of ignorance, dishonesty, or delusions against the person who believes based on faith in the second sense.

I think if someone is believing in something in the face of strong or overwhelming contrary evidence an calling that belief "faith," one is delusional. However if evidence is lacking and one is honest about that and also believes out of "choice" and one calls that "faith," one is not delusional at all. Some may chose to not live by the second notion in favor of a strict rationality for their positions, but I don't think anyone can attack the second notion of faith because it is accompanied by both self and public honesty. I don't think anyone can level any charges of ignorance, dishonesty, or delusions against the person who believes based on faith in the second sense.

Good point! There is something we might call intuitional faith, which is it's own evidence of things unseen. The dozens of floks who had "faith" that 9-11 was a bad day to go to work at the WTC, who could not point to any evidence for this, did well to respect their faith.

Groktruth,

Yeah intuition is more in line with the second sense. There could be other ways one may believe aside from an intuition or gut level feeling that also fall under the second notion. For instance, one may believe based on a "choice" in the face of a lack of evidence or inconclusive evidence of something because they want it to be true or because it makes them feel better even or w/e, and just so long as they are honest about this to themselves and others there is no real basis to say they are being delusional.

If it was, then nothing would come of it, "The man with a new idea is a crank until the idea succeeds." I think self delusion resides more with the lack of faith, or the need of proof, rather than being synonymous with faith.

If it was, then nothing would come of it, "The man with a new idea is a crank until the idea succeeds." I think self delusion resides more with the lack of faith, or the need of proof, rather than being synonymous with faith.

Not necessarily; one could be rigorous in how one goes about answering philosophical questions and be of the type where belief is only possible when one knows, or at least thinks one knows due to some reason, the truth of some proposition. This would be the type of person who would be unable to believe something unless they had good reason and would otherwise just say they don't know. There is honesty in that kind of person as well and they are by no means delusional for being that way.

If it was, then nothing would come of it, "The man with a new idea is a crank until the idea succeeds." I think self delusion resides more with the lack of faith, or the need of proof, rather than being synonymous with faith.

Not necessarily; one could be rigorous in how one goes about answering philosophical questions and be of the type where belief is only possible when one knows, or at least thinks one knows due to some reason, the truth of some proposition. This would be the type of person who would be unable to believe something unless they had good reason and would otherwise just say they don't know. There is honesty in that kind of person as well and they are by no means delusional for being that way.

I read stormy differently, understanding him to be saying that those who do not wish, hope, or choose to believe set up an impossible standard of proof. Then, by crying "Not proven!" they can retreat into the refuge of "Therefore, not true!" which they hope is safe.

They forget, and try to get us to forget, that we live in a world where nothing is proven, where we decide what is wise based on liklihood. Measuring such liklihood, we know from science, depends on the judicious use of faith, which guides the sensible to relevant evidence.

Thank you Groktruth, cheers!..I will have a drink to that..