Is faith synonymous with self-delusion?

But when a person genuinely admits that they do not have enough evidence to support their position, what is that? We may call it faith, but is it not self-delusional, a peculiar form of denial in which the person is not only in denial but is actually admitting that they are in denial?

We all believe things that we do not have sufficient evidence to demonstrate. We all work with a priori, just most of us do not call them faith.

We have to do this. When we wake up in the morning we could begin questioning if we have reason to move forward on assumptions based on what might have been an illusory past, but most of us don't. Most of us have beliefs about the opposite sex that cannot be demonstrated.

Most people who believe things that are generally not thought of as faith based beliefs, could not demonstrate these theories and would make errors in explaining them. IOW they base their beliefs on authority.

We constantly make decisions based on intuition and our assumptions about the universe.

I think that faith can be divided into seperate entities; (1) A religious faith in God (2) A faith in cause and effect (3) A faith in other people. With all types of faith we are taking a chance to believe the reality that the faith creates. I would say that self-delusion is faith gone too far, which is not based on any facts or a logical system of reasoning.

For example, the saying "we reap what we sow" is from Christianity. It basically means that we get out what we put in. It is based on a logical system of reasoning i.e. - if I plant seeds, I will grow the plants of that seed. Self-delusion comes when we believe that if we plant seeds we will grow a different plant to the seeds that we planted, so to speak.

Therefore, I do not believe that faith is synonymous with self-delusion, because faith is based on some fact or another. Self-delusion is a belief based on a misconception and applied with fallicious reasoning, i.e. - if one person is a, then all people are a. No all people are not a. Some are b, others are c etc..

I think that faith can be divided into seperate entities; (1) A religious faith in God (2) A faith in cause and effect (3) A faith in other people. With all types of faith we are taking a chance to believe the reality that the faith creates. I would say that self-delusion is faith gone too far, which is not based on any facts or a logical system of reasoning.

For example, the saying "we reap what we sow" is from Christianity. It basically means that we get out what we put in. It is based on a logical system of reasoning i.e. - if I plant seeds, I will grow the plants of that seed. Self-delusion comes when we believe that if we plant seeds we will grow a different plant to the seeds that we planted, so to speak.

Therefore, I do not believe that faith is synonymous with self-delusion, because faith is based on some fact or another. Self-delusion is a belief based on a misconception and applied with fallicious reasoning, i.e. - if one person is a, then all people are a. No all people are not a. Some are b, others are c etc..

"rightly dividing words of truth" is a biblical exhortation that is echoed by philosophy. In this thread, we have "self-delusion" which ought to be rightly divided from self-deception. Robert Trivers has an interesting book out on self-deception, which he argues evolved because humans base so much of their social interaction on lying. When lying to another, we have all sorts of "tells" that give away that we are lying. The game of poker probably exists because the challenge of detecting and suppressing such tells is a sport that we love to compete in.

So, Trivers argues, we have learned or evolved to deceive ourselves so that we can lie and get away with it.

But, this only works with deception, not delusion, which, as you say, goes too far. The deceiver keeps the truth in the back of their mind. But delusion is the act of looking at a truth, and drawing the wrong conclusion. It is lying by a half-truth, not a mis-truth. In theology, the devil deceives, but God, who can not lie, can only delude. Yeshua, in the midst of a conversation about Herod's temple, and standing right in front of it announced that if this temple were destroyed he would rebuild it in three days. But this was He and God the Father deluding the listeners, because, as the disciples later somehow learned, He was talking in that remark about His body, not the monstrous building in front of Him.

In Triver's analysis, the self deceiver lies effectively, but is able to function in their life with a secret, self-serving, agenda. We are seeing this play out now in the news where it seems that some child abusers and those around them have effectively deceived themselves and others, to keep their good thing going without others interfering.

The self deluder, however, has taken the truth, part of it anyway, and turned it into a lie in their own mind. This truth, tucked away in the back of their minds, now is useless, and they self-destruct.

Faith, meanwhile, is defined in scriptures as "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." The usual interpretation of this, which I think is delusion, actually from God Himself, is that our evidence that there is an unseen God is blind trust that we show in our lives. To say we have faith then means that we are able to act like we trust God.

But, when I ask God what this definition means, He tells me that the evidence is the faith. What is special about faith is that the evidence points to things we cannot see, which we treat as real even though we do not see what we are dealing with. When we blow out a candle, we exercise faith in air. We blow on our hands, and feel the pressure, trust that air is really there and will respond to our blowing by going to the candle and taking the heat away. The biblical definition of faith means that we are to get God to do lots of (little) things in out lives that we can see (or sense, like blowing on our hands) until we trust Him so much that we use Him to solve our candle blowing out problems.

He tells me that faith and science are the same thing. "the substance of things hoped for" is applied science. The (application of) evidence (stuff we can see) to the reality of God (things unseen) is basic science. He said that the reason He referred in that definition to "things" instead of persons (Himself) was because He wanted us to develope faith in the natural before we took on the spiritual. He said that, in this age of almost mature science, many are prepared to become effective believers, instead of the disaster that is the history of Christianity.

Groktruth wrote,

"He tells me that faith and science are the same thing. "the substance of things hoped for" is applied science. The (application of) evidence (stuff we can see) to the reality of God (things unseen) is basic science. He said that the reason He referred in that definition to "things" instead of persons (Himself) was because He wanted us to develope faith in the natural before we took on the spiritual. He said that, in this age of almost mature science, many are prepared to become effective believers, instead of the disaster that is the history of Christianity."

I agree that philosophical understanding of the natural environment around us, is key to also understanding the religious supernatural environment which faith inhabits. And importantly, I think that your formula of doing so is absolutely correct: Intellectual scientific exploration married with religious, theological and philosophical exploration. This is the wonderment that having faith opens us up to. With faith in God, we are able to look at the natural and supernatural aspects of life using scientific, philosophical, theological and religous mehodology. Applying reason and logic to which ever perspective we are viewing from; whilst having a being to place our faith in.

The problem is that people too easily discredit the application of their imaginations. Appropriately used, the imagination is a guiding light. In fact, deductive reasoning is impossible without using the imagination, as one has to imagine whatever they are deducing.

Therefore, faith is prevalent in every aspect of life. Without faith-in-the-self we would not succeed at the tasks we put ourselves to, or overcome challenges. Objectively speaking, faith is a holistic term while self-delusion is isolated to a singular context which is the opposite of faith i.e. "you're delusional to believe in..."

Theologically, self-delusion is a detractor of faith; not synonymous with it. Self-delusion teases faith, in the same way the Wicked One (Satan) teases those with faith (Matthew 4:1 - 11) hoping via misconception to corrupt faith and turn it into self-delusion - which is not synonymous with faith; but a stand alone entitiy which attacks faith.

Groktruth wrote,

"He tells me that faith and science are the same thing. "the substance of things hoped for" is applied science. The (application of) evidence (stuff we can see) to the reality of God (things unseen) is basic science. He said that the reason He referred in that definition to "things" instead of persons (Himself) was because He wanted us to develope faith in the natural before we took on the spiritual. He said that, in this age of almost mature science, many are prepared to become effective believers, instead of the disaster that is the history of Christianity."

I agree that philosophical understanding of the natural environment around us, is key to also understanding the religious supernatural environment which faith inhabits. And importantly, I think that your formula of doing so is absolutely correct: Intellectual scientific exploration married with religious, theological and philosophical exploration. This is the wonderment that having faith opens us up to. With faith in God, we are able to look at the natural and supernatural aspects of life using scientific, philosophical, theological and religous mehodology. Applying reason and logic to which ever perspective we are viewing from; whilst having a being to place our faith in.

The problem is that people too easily discredit the application of their imaginations. Appropriately used, the imagination is a guiding light. In fact, deductive reasoning is impossible without using the imagination, as one has to imagine whatever they are deducing.

Therefore, faith is prevalent in every aspect of life. Without faith-in-the-self we would not succeed at the tasks we put ourselves to, or overcome challenges. Objectively speaking, faith is a holistic term while self-delusion is isolated to a singular context which is the opposite of faith i.e. "you're delusional to believe in..."

Theologically, self-delusion is a detractor of faith; not synonymous with it. Self-delusion teases faith, in the same way the Wicked One (Satan) teases those with faith (Matthew 4:1 - 11) hoping via misconception to corrupt faith and turn it into self-delusion - which is not synonymous with faith; but a stand alone entitiy which attacks faith.

Can you share your rules for making sure you are not self-deceived, or self-deluded?

Ho Groktruth,

In my experience, the rules to use to ensure that one is not self-deceived or self-deluded, is to keep a keen eye on the methodolgy, facts and most importantly the results, of anything that you are researching or writing about via research contemplation, meditation, experiement etc...

For instance; when one speaks of being "a born again christian," we should search for the empirical evidence of ourselves being "reborn." That is the resulting internal change in our person i.e. - it is as though the 'old us' is consumed and we are recreated internally as a mirror reflection of Christ, thus becoming a child of God, mimicking Christ's virtues to the best of our ability.

The methodology is being believing in God, that facts are what we accept through faith and the result is the internal change.

If we apply that same method of thinking to a misconception such as narcotic drug use, the person believes that they recquire the narcotic drug to survive (methodology), when in-fact (fact) the drug is destroying them both mentally and physically (result).

NB: When I was writing my book, I tried as hard as I could to avoid making assumptions about divinity, that is where athiests and other religions will pick us apart. Research and logical conclusions will lead to divine proofs i.e. in the book of Isaiah, God commisioned king Cyrus of Persia to build him a great temple of worship - the temple was subsequently bulit by king Cyrus, and is called "The Second Temple." Here, there is no solid ground for the athiest to challenge, because the proof is in the pudding, so to speak. All they can argue is coincidence. Our arguement is simply that what God wanted (his will) was done.

Therefore, allow the methodolgy, facts and most importantly the results to be your guide in research. I learnt this process from Matthew Arnold's Culture and Anarchy: An Essay in Political and Social Criticism. That book is a believers wet dream, you must read it!

Fanman why do you place your faith in a book that fails to make you capable of answering the most simplest of questions. I have many faith driven friends who will not examine their faith and admit they simply believe without even understanding why. Do you simply rely on scriptures and refuse examination? You walk away from my questions but ask us to examine scriptures as if they are absolutes of the truth. Can you not see how I am puzzled by your dogmatic beliefs and frustrated by your refusal to enter into simple conversation?

Faith is intellectual suicide but it is not synonymous with self-delusion.

Faith isn't always intellectual suicide, it can be a rational choice. As example...

I have faith that everything will be ok when I die. I don't claim to know any of the details, but I have faith in the bottom line. I have no evidence for this belief. I know I have no evidence.

But, the feeling that everything will be ok arises, and I let it hang around. I encourage it a bit too. It's entirely rational to do so.

A belief that everything will be ok when we die brings some perspective to life. If we think everything will ultimately be ok, then it's easier to not sweat all the little things that aren't going as we might prefer. Not sweating the little things makes life easier and more fun.

Whether the premise "death will be ok" is actually true or not isn't that relevant. What's relevant is whether we believe it.

Faith can be entirely rational. If faith wasn't grounded in reason, if it didn't work in improving lives, it would have itself died out long ago.

Hi Xris,

If you read my posts, you'll see that I do examine my faith, I apply reason and logic to it. Due to the fact that you're a staunch athiest, I see no value in entering into an ad hominem dicussion with you about faith. If you want to see my faith fully explored, please read my book, it will answer alot of you're questions. We are all dogmatic in my view, all that differs, is what we are dogmatic about.

Hi Xris,

If you read my posts, you'll see that I do examine my faith, I apply reason and logic to it. Due to the fact that you're a staunch athiest, I see no value in entering into an ad hominem dicussion with you about faith. If you want to see my faith fully explored, please read my book, it will answer alot of you're questions. We are all dogmatic in my view, all that differs, is what we are dogmatic about.

Sorry that is just excusing your inability to answer simple questions. I am not a staunch atheist, I am an agnostic that questions your conclusions. I came about my truth by simple questions. Those same questions I have placed at your door and you have ignored them. You are not alone, I have put the same questions to catholic bishops who are given the task of educating priests and they failed. Scriptures and theological education will not serve you if you can not answer the most simplest of questions. To me dogma is the enemy and I will never sit down and accept it's hospitality.

Fanman why do you place your faith in a book that fails to make you capable of answering the most simplest of questions. I have many faith driven friends who will not examine their faith and admit they simply believe without even understanding why. Do you simply rely on scriptures and refuse examination? You walk away from my questions but ask us to examine scriptures as if they are absolutes of the truth. Can you not see how I am puzzled by your dogmatic beliefs and frustrated by your refusal to enter into simple conversation?

My first rule to avoid self-delusion, is make sure the words in use are clearly defined. For example, when I speak of faith, I mean the subset of all evidence or experience, that reflects or seems dependent on unseen enities. When I see the trees sway, and I say that the wind is blowing, I am making a faith statement.

You and I are in complete agreement that, by the definition of faith you use, (an unsubstantiated opinion?), faith is a useless or dangerous activity.

Now, the scriptures define themselves as a document inspired by an unseen, higher, living, personal being, written to provide directions for getting into communication with Him, like a phone book with yellow pages. "See this picture of Pizza! Call this number, let us charge X dollars to your card, and the real thing will be delivered to you!" The faith (my definition) comes from the experience of making the call, getting the pizza, and eating it. OK, I never get to see the Pizza Parlor. But, I have faith that it exists, because the Pizza came.

I think we agree that those who rip the picture of the pizza out of the book, and start eating it (your definition of faith?), are looney.

My definition of faith comes from a belief that hypocrisy is bad. Anyone basing their faith on the bible would have to use the definition that is in the bible, which is "evidence of things unseen" and "the "substance of things hoped for." Nothing unsubstantiated, all evidence. Ok, so lots of religious hypocrites come round with a different definition, in fact, calling faith the exact opposite of the biblical definition. Well, it is written in the scriptures that this would happen, so I am warned to ignore them.

Now, if you insist that all believers are such hypocrites, that would explain why the non-hypocrites would want to write you off, as they do with the hypocritical believers. You would be just as bad as they are! One cannot converse with someone who refuses to accept the definitions one uses, when those definitions are the most philosophically sound. We teach algebra mainly to teach people to follow an analysis by accepting arbitrary definitions. (Let X be....). How much more when we begin, "the earliest defintion of this word is...." Like the hypocritical believers, we understand that many people defend their denial of the truth, by mis-defining faith, and so having no word for the intended meaning (inferential evidence). Thus they keep themselves from having to think about things "not seen."

-- Updated Mon Dec 19, 2011 4:02 pm to add the following --

Hi Xris,

If you read my posts, you'll see that I do examine my faith, I apply reason and logic to it. Due to the fact that you're a staunch athiest, I see no value in entering into an ad hominem dicussion with you about faith. If you want to see my faith fully explored, please read my book, it will answer alot of you're questions. We are all dogmatic in my view, all that differs, is what we are dogmatic about.

Sorry, I have lost sight of where to get your book. Vould you repost it?

Sorry that is just excusing your inability to answer simple questions.

Are your questions about god(s) based on reason?

If yes, please demonstrate that human reason and logic is binding on all of reality.

Before you do that, please tell us how big reality actually is.

If we don't even know what reality actually is, how can we know that reason is an adequate and appropriate tool for evaluating all of reality?

Isn't any conclusion that reason would be capable of analyzing gods also an act of faith?

Sorry that is just excusing your inability to answer simple questions.

Are your questions about god(s) based on reason?

If yes, please demonstrate that human reason and logic is binding on all of reality.

Before you do that, please tell us how big reality actually is.

If we don't even know what reality actually is, how can we know that reason is an adequate and appropriate tool for evaluating all of reality?

Isn't any conclusion that reason would be capable of analyzing gods also an act of faith?

Hey, Typist!

Just read this and thought you'd like it!

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/11/arts/ ... all&src=pm

Sorry that is just excusing your inability to answer simple questions.

Are your questions about god(s) based on reason?

If yes, please demonstrate that human reason and logic is binding on all of reality.

Before you do that, please tell us how big reality actually is.

If we don't even know what reality actually is, how can we know that reason is an adequate and appropriate tool for evaluating all of reality?

Isn't any conclusion that reason would be capable of analyzing gods also an act of faith?

Subjectively, reality is everything that is reflected to me via my consciousness. Objectively, reality is everything that man kind has reflected upon consciously. Anything further is our imagination....Maybe

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/11/arts/so-god-s-really-in-the-details.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

Howdy Grok, thanks for the link, yes that's interesting.

As I guess you know, I find this topic fascinating. The religious attempting to prove their faith with reason. Reasonists using faith to come to their conclusions, without realizing it. It's quite the circus, isn't it?