Is faith synonymous with self-delusion?

Saying you dont have faith is like saying you don't trust.

belief has attained the level of faith when it motivates life and shapes the mode of living. The acceptance of a teaching as true is not faith; that is mere belief. Neither is certainty nor conviction faith. A state of mind attains to faith levels only when it actually dominates the mode of living. faith is a living attribute of genuine personal religious experience. One believes truth, admires beauty, and reverences goodness, but does not worship them; such an attitude of saving faith is centered on God alone, who is all of these personified and infinitely more.

Sometimes when scientists or empiricist-leaning laymen are debating the existence of a thing or truth of a proposition, a believer in the thing being doubted will admit to disregarding the evidence and instead believing the thing on faith. It can even happen as easily as when one person simply asks a second person why the second person believes a certain thing and the second responds along the lines of, "I just have faith." Consider the following examples of what I mean:

Example 1: A woman who is head over heals for her husband starts finding very strong evidence that he is cheating. Maybe she finds other women's underwear when she comes home from work. But despite the overwhelming evidence that her husband is cheating, she says, "I want to believe he is not cheating. I choose to believe he is not cheating. I have faith that he is not cheating."

Example 2: An under-qualified man goes to a job interview and bombs. He even overhears on his way out somebody talking about some of the other applicants who are much more qualified. The interviewer told him that they would make their decision Wednesday because they needed the job filled and they would call him before that if he got the job. It's Friday, so all the evidence indicates overwhelmingly that the man didn't get the job. When he calls his mother to break the bad news, she tells him that she believes they chose him because she has "faith" that he got the job.

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?

Let's look at it like this. If a person believes a proposition because the person believes the personally known evidence indicates that the proposition is true, then the person does not believe it out of faith but rather because of the evidence. Alternatively, if the person admittedly thinks the evidence warrants a contrary belief, can the person actually believe? They can say they choose to believe despite the evidence or despite the lack of evidence, but what does it mean to choose to believe? It's one thing when a person is so biased or stubborn or even delusional that they allegedly misinterpret the available evidence or biasedly seek out any evidence supporting them while ignoring the other evidence. 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?

Faith is a strategy and not a kind of epistemic justifier. It's more like love and less like evidence. Faith can be abused, like love, and so there are risks to having faith in someone, but faith can pay off big time when its recipient is well-chosen.

The key fact here is that having faith in someone can change that person's behaviour and, in turn, become a self-fulfilling prophecy. (For example, we don't want our mothers' to be wrong that we will one day be successful, and that is an added motivation to be successful). Having faith is just something highly social animals like humans do, because it is a very effective cooperative strategy.

The problem comes in when people start having faith in, or loyalty to, an idea. Ideas aren't like people: they don't care what you think about them, and they will not strive to become more true just because someone has faith in them. You can love an idea, but the idea will never love you back.

Why then, if faith is a strategy in relationships, do people have faith in ideas which can't possibly reciprocate? The reason is to demonstrate loyalty to a group. Ideas, in this context, are like flags. They are just arbitrary symbols used as proxies for social groups, and so to be loyal to the idea is a way to signal loyalty to the group.

This is why people don't have faith in ideas about practical everyday things, but rather things which don't impact everyday life (except insofar as they all try to out-signal each other in loyalty to the group by praying 20 times a day or whatever).

If ideas are to fulfill this social function, then they need to be arbitrary like flags, and ideas about God and the afterlife fit the bill. There is no way to test them (or at least there wasn't any practical means of doing so), and whether there is one gods or two really doesn't change anything about how to grow crops, plow the land, or sell the goods at market. They are like flags.

This doesn't mean every idea that people have faith in is false, of course, but it does explain faith and its peculiarities.

your definition of faith amounts to delusion. but I also have faith in many realities such as God and I have reasons and arguments for those beliefs. in this context faith as a favorite saint of mine said is to heartily accept what one has understood through intellect. therefore it's very different from understanding or viewing something as true. because faith entail unity with the subject known when there is less and less distance between the subject and the object, it's like love.

Faith = trust (= love).
Boopsy has faith that I will sucessfully go shopping and return with what she asked for. As I have done this numerous times, her faith grows stronger.
Is she 'self-deluded'?
Experience/perception says no.
(I can argue that there is no such thing as 'illusion/delusion' but in the eye of the beholder. Who has ever said that 'I am self-deluded'!)

Faith/belief is just another way of knowing!
Like intuition.
'Empiricism' has had the crap beat out of it by quantum mechanics, but still remains another (albeit 'smaller') way of knowing.

"The complete Universe (Reality/Truth/God/'Self!'/Tao/Brahman... or any feature herein...) can be defined/described as the synchronous sum-total of all Perspectives!" - Book of Fudd
ALL INCLUSIVE!!!

Is Philosophy a search for meanings?

I often see this (delusion thing) posted and it leaves me with the thought that the posting is in fact delusional. So maybe the words needs to be revisited.



Description
A delusion is a belief that is clearly false and that indicates an abnormality in the affected person's content of thought. The false belief is not accounted for by the person's cultural or religious background or his or her level of intelligence. The key feature of a delusion is the degree to which the person is convinced that the belief is true. A person with a delusion will hold firmly to the belief regardless of evidence to the contrary. Delusions can be difficult to distinguish from overvalued ideas, which are unreasonable ideas that a person holds, but the affected person has at least some level of doubt as to its truthfulness. A person with a delusion is absolutely convinced that the delusion is real.



When talking about Humanities basic dominant belief it makes one wonder who is in fact delusional.



The word faith is often applied to this, as though faith is some how a part of delusion.



Description



Belief has attained the level of faith when it motivates life and shapes the mode of living. The acceptance of a teaching as true is not faith; that is mere belief. Neither is certainty nor conviction faith. A state of mind attains to faith levels only when it actually dominates the mode of living. Faith is a living attribute of genuine personal religious experience. One believes truth, admires beauty, and reverences goodness, but does not worship them; such an attitude of saving faith is centered on God alone, who is all of these personified and infinitely more



Description



To the religionist the word God becomes a symbol signifying the approach to supreme reality and the recognition of divine value. Human likes and dislikes do not determine good and evil; moral values do not grow out of wish fulfillment or emotional frustration.

May I suggest another definition of 'Faith'?

In my definition, faith is a lack of the desire to measure and to judge objects as one does not understand himself as a separate subject. This in turn leads one to a certain detachment from conventional life, taking it not all too serious anymore.

It doesn't mean that one stops entirely to measure and to judge, but one stops in taking it entirely serious. When one has faith, he starts to see it more like a game.
So, as for me, its always quite a sure sign that one is lacking faith, when his ways are not playful but all serious. And that's why there is no faith in all the churches of the world, because nobody of them really religious people dares to laugh when facing the altar. That's what makes faith different from believe. That's why I consider scientists, that can not laugh into the face of their theories, taking it all seriously, as religious people. As well as atheists, that take their believe in the non-existence of god dead serious and thus regularly engage in zealous debate with the theists, which again are seen, quite undeservingly I think, as the archetype of the believer. Because the fact that the theists were the first to believe, before all the other '-ists' could join them, doesn't necessarily mean, that their belief is somehow more fundamental.

It's the laughing at idols in all their manifold forms that separates faith from belief. And that's why defining things is strictly speaking a lack of faith, above all when they are taken seriously by the definition maker. So when stretching things a little, we could say that 'Faith' and the Paradox', the 'Absurd', is one and the same thing.

Thus it is not all that surprising that faith and believe are confused all the time. Since, on the other hand, there is no sure sign for faith. When one is all playful and not at all serious, that's not a sure sign for faith too, because chance is that he's just a clown. Ever heard of the sad clown? Faith therefore is very difficult to discern in other people. And it's not possible at all to discern faith from belief by just knowing the surface of people. That's why it is so easy to pretend and put a great show on. That's why it is so commonly institutionalized into churches of all kinds, because it's a con that is so easily pulled of. Churches basically are a con act institutionalized. People go to church not because they are faithfull but on the contrary, because they lack faith and thus believe it's a serious and very important thing. Look at the churches and cathedrals. It is very important that they are superior to everything else, that's because it is such a serious thing.

As I see it, faith can only be noticed in people that are very close. And even then it is very difficult. And people are not static. But the good news is that it is much easier to discern faith, or the lack of it, in oneself than in others. Because if you are going to take an exam and as a result are very nervous and sweating blood, it's clearly because you are lacking faith and thus believe that the result of the exam really is no laughable matter.

If belief is the illness, then faith is the cure.

In my philosophical/scientific training, I was taught that the earliest definition of a word was significant, and that the best definitions were hierarchical, 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 the case of faith, an early definition is that it is "evidence" (superset), of things unseen (subset). 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.

Blind, or evidence-less, faith thus becomes a contradiction in terms.

In theology, I learned that such contradictions in terms are evidence for something else we cannot see, an invisible enemy that is attempting to "darken counsel."

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.

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.

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. We must increase our experience, and our understanding of how any evidence might reflect what we cannot see. But, we must turn away from our subjective pressures to gather and interpret evidence that supports what we want to think is true. We have to be "scientific."

As I studied science and theology, I was rather impressed how similar they are. Theology, I note, was once called "the queen of the sciences." I was also impressed at how the historical foolishness of science was predicted by theology. Scientific explanations (there are no sensible predictions that I know of--just ad hoc explanantions) of religion are less impressive. But science does fairly well theologically.

But, as predicted by theology (and Diogenes) self-delusion is rampant in both religion and science, as these are human institutions.

Yes, it is useful in that regard.

Yes, it is useful in that regard.

Or better, "No, but thinking so is useful in that regard."

Because free will trumps intelligent thinking. Choose to delude yourself, and you will find all sorts of thoughts helpful to that end. Like, accepting synonomy (and therefore, confusion) in dialogue and logic.

But, truth be told, define faith and self-delusion precisely, objectively, and they are polar opposites. This is easily seen by those who choose the way of truth, and totally obscure to those without a plan, and a mentor, to find truth.

Hello all; and especially GroK:

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.[1] Unlike hallucinations, delusions are always pathological (the result of an illness or illness process).[1] 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 . . .?

First of all I see belief and faith as the same thing. If someone can see a difference please explain it to me. Using the JP continuum from Meyers-Briggs personality categorizing system, I would see, faith the same as judgement. I would see Judgement to also be the same thing as faith, except that it would be much stronger on the continuum line. Faith is difficult to have, but judgement is solid, easy-to-have faith. On the opposite side of the continuum Experimentive, perceptive awareness, behavior driven by the desire to test and understand.

Now Self-delusion refers to the believes that are not as compatible with reality, as they could be. Using judgement, allows one to act quickly, and with a feeling of certainty. People with strong Judgement ability, usually also have political skills to twist the facts in order to cover up, or even make their mistakes appear as something beneficial. In addition, they also have many mental tricks that prevent them from thinking too deep about anything.

Hello all; and especially "Dodaive"

in my understanding a rational "belief" is based on some kind of evidence. Irrational faith "Faith" many times refuses to consider evidence, or superior evidence:

A few examples:

1). I believe and have faith (simultaneously) that the sun will rise again tomorrow: Given new evidence I would need to change my belief about that, although I might still have faith that it would rise again the day after tomorrow, for instance.

2). "We" used to believe that the earth was flat. Then new evidence was produced that the earth was round. Today we even have pictures that prove this. However: For a long time, many people still had faith in a flat earth . . . .

3). Fundamental orthodox religion just cannot give up their faith in a mythological, anthropomorphic "god": A "god" in human form. Science on the other hand has produced evidence that a "god" in human form does not exist. In this and most other matters: I do not have faith in religion: I believe science.

Hello all; and especially GroK:

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.[1] Unlike hallucinations, delusions are always pathological (the result of an illness or illness process).[1] 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 . . .?

I'm just enjoying your continuing confirmation that the lines of thought I am pursuing are after Schopenhouer's notion of truth!

Don't forget that, early on, theology was the queen of the sciences. This fact tends to get covered up by the great number of scientists that fail to pass Diogenes' lantern test.

Hi GroK

Re:

I'm just enjoying your continuing confirmation that the lines of thought I am pursuing are after Schopenhauer's notion of truth! Well, based on Schopenhauer's notion of truth, of course you would.

Don't forget that, early on, theology was the queen of the sciences. Well, as I wasn't even aware of it before, it actually is pretty easy for me to forget this (as far as I am concerned) completely fabricated, unsubstantiated claim. This fact What fact? tends to get covered up by the great number of scientists and even more theologians, like you . . . that fail to pass Diogenes' lantern test. Which seems to presume that you do . . . And like Diogenes, I am highly skeptical about that.

Hi GroK

Re:

I'm just enjoying your continuing confirmation that the lines of thought I am pursuing are after Schopenhauer's notion of truth! Well, based on Schopenhauer's notion of truth, of course you would.

Don't forget that, early on, theology was the queen of the sciences. Well, as I wasn't even aware of it before, it actually is pretty easy for me to forget this (as far as I am concerned) completely fabricated, unsubstantiated claim. This fact What fact? tends to get covered up by the great number of scientists and even more theologians, like you . . . that fail to pass Diogenes' lantern test. Which seems to presume that you do . . . And like Diogenes, I am highly skeptical about that.

Remember that, as regards biblical theology at least, "it is the glory of Kings to search out a matter," and that there are many cautions about explaining too much. You can, if you want to know, research, on wikipedia even, most of the questions you raise.