Delusion

[The Reality Salesman01]

If you believe that you have a personal relationship with a specific God, how can you be sure that it's not a delusion?

Any belief that is founded upon evidence is subject to the possibility of future evidence being discovered that would render one's belief false. But, if one's belief is founded upon faith, then there is no amount of evidence that could make one revise their belief. A faith-based belief begins in the mind (soul), and since it has not been founded upon evidence, it cannot be overturned by evidence. This seems to be quite different from misconstruing reality. For if one holds a belief that misconstrues reality, one is willing to revise that belief when the evidence presents itself (ie. world is not flat, it's round). A faith-based belief cannot be overturned by evidence, as it appears subjectively true in the mind of the beholder, and from the belief holders perspective, and a third party, it is indistinguishable from a delusion. If one is delusional, they hold an unwaivering conviction of certainty that is only strengthened by confirmation bias, and is immune to evidence to the contrary. This is true in all cases, and not just religion.

Keeping in mind all of the conflicting claims being made around the world of personal relationships, with exclusive Gods, made by individuals that are all absolutely certain that the others are wrong-How does one reconcile this crippling flaw in logic? It seems quite obvious at this point that-either one is right, and all others in the world are either lying or delusional-or they are all mistaken. To say they are compatible is intellectually dishonest. Clarification is required.

[DLJ]

Or in other words...

[Foxaèr]

This reminds me of the scene in the recent episode of Supernatural where Cas had a conversation with a rather ignorant theist.

I actually wanted to reach through the screen and slap the stupid woman.

I did not think I would find it, but here it is on youtube:

http://youtu.be/ys5kVrVHl44

[The Reality Salesman01]

I just read a book from Peter Bohossian, and he discusses the importance of nailing down the definition of "Faith" as "Pretending to know things you don't know". When you plug that in to commonly heard statements from Christians, it really captures the absurdity of faith claims:

Without faith, my life has not meaning.

TRANSLATION: Without pretending to know things I don't know, my life has no meaning.

Alice is having a crisis of faith.

TRANSLATION: Alice is having a crisis of pretending to know things she does not know.

Alternatively, she's just been struck by the fact that she's been pretending to know things she does not know.

INTERVENTION!!!!

[Angrboda]

You seem to be implying that our beliefs can and should be changed by evidence, primarily; that you are saying that evidence combined with sound reasoning results in beliefs, in the absence of delusion or other pathology. You seem to put the effects of reasoning and evidence on our beliefs on a par with history, environment, biology, cognitive bias and so on. What evidence do you have that this is true of the human mind? I'm inclined to believe that reason plays a subservient role to emotion and other evolved psychological mechanisms, but I'm not going to make that case here. You seem, in framing the concept of delusion as you do, to be implying that forming and maintaining beliefs in line with the evidence is normal, and forming and maintaing beliefs based on non-rational cognitive processes and influence is therefore an abnormality. Granted, studying cognitive bias is a hobby of mine, so I may tend to see that component in an exagerrated light, but I think the rationalist view is an equally distorted picture of human nature. Do you have any evidence that the rationalist paradigm is normal, useful, and healthy? If not, it would seem this entire line of thinking falls apart. What do you actually know about the processes which govern belief formation and maintenance?

[DLJ]

This reminds me of the scene in the recent episode of Supernatural where Cas had a conversation with a rather ignorant theist.

I actually wanted to reach through the screen and slap the stupid woman.

I did not think I would find it, but here it is on youtube:

Actually, I'm ok with that scene up until the last line.

It seems like a fair representation of the behaviour I observe and nicely summarises the whole 'placebo effect' thing.

The last line, however, was an assertion of fact or as Tex put it...
pretending to know things she does not know.

Liking that.

[The Reality Salesman01]

You seem to be implying that our beliefs can and should be changed by evidence, primarily; that you are saying that evidence combined with sound reasoning results in beliefs, in the absence of delusion or other pathology.

Yes, they can and should, with regards to beliefs that represent objectivity [personal relationship with the creator of the cosmos]. Do they always? No. Am I guilty of holding beliefs without the basis of evidence? Of course. But, I am making an effort to avoid this, and when the evidence presents itself, I revise my objective beliefs in accordance with the evidence.

You seem to put the effects of reasoning and evidence on our beliefs on a par with history, environment, biology, cognitive bias and so on

I would put them on par with those things. However, "belief" covers a wide scope. In my OP, I am referring to beliefs in regards to objective claims. Our beliefs are representations of reality, and when they extend beyond our personal experience, they can be rationalized as either accurate representations of reality, or inaccurate. The processes that we use to arrive at these representations of the objective do not gurantee certainty, but some are more reliable than others.

What evidence do you have that this is true of the human mind?

I think you are asking me to prove something that I am not entirely defending. Let me clarify...

I'm inclined to believe that reason plays a subservient role to emotion and other evolved psychological mechanisms, but I'm not going to make that case here. You seem, in framing the concept of delusion as you do, to be implying that forming and maintaining beliefs in line with the evidence is normal, and forming and maintaing beliefs based on non-rational cognitive processes and influence is therefore an abnormality.

With regards to objective claims? Yes. Although, I wouldn't say "abnormal", I would go with, "unreliable". I would agree with you when it comes to truths of a subjective nature. Reason is going to take a back seat when it comes to interpreting art, music, love, and other things of the sort.

Reason, logic, and evidence are more reliable than following your heart when it comes to beliefs that represent something that is not only true for you, in the subjective sense but true for everyone. One can believe there is a God, but there's nothing subjective about whether or not God actually exists. Following your heart is no more reliable here than it would be with regards to determining the shape of the earth, wouldn't you agree?

Do you have any evidence that the rationalist paradigm is normal, useful, and healthy? If not, it would seem this entire line of thinking falls apart.

I am not suggesting that the raationalist paradigm is all that we should use. If I were, I'd agree that such a claim could not be substantiated. I will grant that reason and evidence, with regards to objectivity, can lead one to a belief that misconstrues reality but the recongition of this only indicates that more evidence has shown it to be a mistake. One's recognition of this can lead to a revision of their belief that more accurately represents reality (world being round and not flat). A conviction driven by emotion and conformation bias (with regards to objectivity) will maintain that the earth is flat in the face of evidence. This is a delsusion.

My contention is that objective claims about a God are no different. If there is no evidence that one can think of that would dispell their belief that God exists, then they would be incapable of recognizing such evidence even if it presented itself. Being willing to revise one's belif (with regards to objectivity) in the face of evidence is not delusional. It's intellectual honesty. The opposite would be self deception and a delusion.

Does that make more sense?

[The Reality Salesman01]

Ah crap....*ConFIRmation Bias...I hate when I do that!