Is faith synonymous with self-delusion?

Hello, I am Luis, this is my first time in this forum, so I find it necessary to introduce myself. I Mostly participate in Spanish debates, this is the first time I post in English, hopefully I won't make a lot of grammatical errors.

In relation to the debate, that is, “ is faith synonymous with self-delusion”, I have to say no. the definition of faith is: “firm belief in something for which there is no proof “. now, no proof does not mean no evidence or evidence against the believe, having faith in something just means that you believe something without actually knowing it.

Believing in something with evidence against the believe is not faith, it's foolishness. Most people, do not know enough logic, so, they do not now how to infer correctly, as a result, they have believes without reasons, or better said, believes without valid reasons, or in this case, believes with reasons or evidence against the believe. It's also necessary to remember or animal nature, and how emotions affect or judgment.

I think we have to be faithful to the true meaning of the words, that is, we should not misuse words giving them more meanings than they already have, because in a way, that's the real reason why we're debating this now, that is, because people misuse the word faith so much, giving it a self-delusion quality, that we doubt weather it is synonymous with it.

If I made any grammatical error, please be kind.

Greetings.

Welcome Luis. Luis wrote:

Believing in something with evidence against the believe is not faith, it's foolishness.

I agree with Luis about what faith is, except that faith has more of an emotional component than some other sorts of beliefs. 'Faith' also often has a component of respectability and heavyweight theory or narrative which superstitious belief or simple ignorance lacks.

With regard to believing in something with evidence against it, we are into philosophy of science. Falsification is not sufficient reason to abandon a hypothesis unless the falsification evidence is overwhelming. As to what constitutes overwhelming evidence is debatable within philosophy of science let alone within everyday common sense beliefs.People usually have a pragmatic need to have faith in something if the faith is sufficiently beneficial, or if they are sufficiently coerced to believe it. Thus freedom trumps faith and, relatively, mental freedom comes with knowledge and the tools of good judgement.
'Is faith synonymous with self delusion?' Sometimes, not always. We need criteria in order to establish what constitutes a reasonable belief, a reasonable faith. Those criteria will be pragmatic, logical and forebearing.

Atheism is simply a denial that god exists (full stop),

Upon what basis is this denial asserted? What reasons are given? This denial is based on something, right? What is that something?

Religious faith is a different faith than the faith one has in the reliability of a bridge or an airplane.

The most remarkable form of faith may be driving. We are in our metal coffin traveling 60mph down the road. In the other lane someone else is headed straight for us at 60mph. We know absolutely nothing about this other person. They will pass us at a distance of about 5 feet. And yet, we are relaxed, listening to the radio, confident that all will go well, despite the fact that it very often doesn't (about 100 people a day killed in car wrecks in the U.S.).

And there is not just one person, but perhaps hundreds of them, each and every day. We put our very lives on the line every day, using our faith in this game of Russian roulette. The power of faith is remarkable.

Religious faith is faith that can't be swayed by experience

Actually, many or most people claim their religious faith is a result of experience.

And it does no good to take a step back and say well yes, that person has religious faith in the scientific method itself.

Not a religious faith in science.

Just a faith that science is qualified to address questions of infinite scale, such as what is or isn't at the heart of all reality. It's only a religious faith in the sense we are discussing questions of infinite scale.

It's simple. Let's say I make a big claim about all of reality. And then you ask me to define "all of reality".

And I have no clue how to define it. Maybe all of reality is one universe, maybe 57 trillion universes, maybe it's something else entirely, I have no idea.

My big claim then goes out the window, right? It doesn't matter what the claim is.

This won't wash because the scientific method over hundreds of years has yielded countless concrete results that lend confidence (another sense of the word "faith") in the viability of the scientific method.

Holy books have a documented record of success at profoundly changing people's lives. This has been going on for thousands of years, in every culture on the planet. Should we leap from this fact to an assumption that therefore holy books know what is or isn't at the heart of all reality?

Science has a documented record of success at building bridges, calculating the orbits of planets, and many other things etc. Should we leap from this fact to an assumption that therefore science knows what is or isn't at the heart of all reality?

Please recall, we can't even begin to define what "all of reality" is.

Typist,
You obviously didn't read or understand my post.

wishing you well, gadfly

You obviously didn't read or understand my post.

I read it, understood it, and replied directly to it.

You believe that reason is qualified to analyze questions of infinite scale. There is no evidence of such an ability. Thus, the belief is faith.

It's the exact same test we reasonably apply to holy books. If someone believes in holy books, despite any evidence that holy books are qualified to address questions of infinite scale, their belief is faith.

To be clear, I'm not saying atheism is wrong. I have no way of knowing that. It could be true that reason will eventually prove to be an adequate tool for analyzing questions of infinite scale.

Here's a tricky question. When two mirrors face one another an infinite number of reflections are produced? Is that belief based on reason, logic or faith.

Which belief are you referring to?

The Typist wrote,

"Which belief are you referring to?"

The belief that there will be an infinite number of reflections.

Sounds like reason to me.

We have direct experience with mirrors and reflections. We can reproduce the condition, document it, analyze it etc.

Sounds like reason to me.

We have direct experience with mirrors and reflections. We can reproduce the condition, document it, analyze it etc.

Ah, but how do we analyze infinity?! There has to be a degree of faith placed onto the analysis. That faith, is faith in scientific measuring methods. I think (only now thinking of the answer) that its a combination of all three reason, logic and faith - working together to create a belief.

Xris,

One at a time. I'm getting old.

G.

I have to have a description to enquire. I am sure your not a christian so the questions I asked FAnman would not be relevant to you. There is notion that atheists are not aware of the futility of arguing against faith. I agree, if faith does not require support but when religion is used to support faith, we have a debate. No faith can survive without certain beliefs. I have faith the sun will rise tomorrow, I have faith in the sun.I have faith in nature. Faith in god? What god, describe him? You can not avoid description and that is where faith fails us all.

Hi Xris,

If you want a description of God from the perspective of Christian theology (which is the God I believe in) simply read the Christian bible.

Hi Xris,

If you want a description of God from the perspective of Christian theology (which is the God I believe in) simply read the Christian bible.

As teenage Baptist it was essential I had bible studies with an elder. I do know the description, that is where my questions originate.

Hi Xris,

I think that you're going about this the wrong way. If you consider what you know about God, describing him should be easy for you. He is the type of Father who suffered and sacrificed his own son so that mankind would have a chance of redemption. That was a great expression of love and mercy; therefore God is loving and merciful. He is the keeper of those who believe in him and his son. He is (through Jesus) always welcoming new sheep to the herd; therefore God is welcoming. You get my drift now Xris? God did x; therefore he is y. Hence you have a description.

Hi Xris,

I think that you're going about this the wrong way. If you consider what you know about God, describing him should be easy for you. He is the type of Father who suffered and sacrificed his own son so that mankind would have a chance of redemption. That was a great expression of love and mercy; therefore God is loving and merciful. He is the keeper of those who believe in him and his son. He is (through Jesus) always welcoming new sheep to the herd; therefore God is welcoming. You get my drift now Xris? God did x; therefore he is y. Hence you have a description.

A simple concept that fails to answer the important questions. I have asked you the questions before without reply so to ask you again would be fruitless. Have you not moved on from simple acceptance and ever questioned gods reasoning?