Theists, are you immune to being decieved?

[The Reality Salesman01]

Is there a standard within our assumed reality by which we measure fantasy from reality? From what part of behavior is delusion a member? To take an example from Socrates, if I were to ask of you which numbers are odd, you would tell me it is those numbers that cannot be divided into equal parts.

So of what behavior is delusional while other behavior is not?

Or are all assumptions presumed to be equally grounded in reality?

[Foxaèr]

So of what behavior is delusional while other behavior is not?

Delving into psychology would most likely answer this question, except that I would take it one step further by stating that the individual's behavior can still be harmless to one's self as well as others for the delusion to still exist.

Maintaining that something exists despite the obvious knowledge that it does not is a clear sign of delusion.

Or are all assumptions presumed to be equally grounded in reality?

Assumptions are just that, an opinion derived not from fact but from guessing. Just as psychics sometimes get some things right by chance, assumptions sometimes have the chance of being correct as well, but to state that assuming is a science would be ignorant.

Having faith that a deity exists is merely assuming that the deity exists despite the foolish theistic claim to knowledge.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Usually delusional people show signs of their problem in multiple contexts, like interpersonal relations. I don't see how you could claim that an otherwise competing person is delusional just because they have interpreted a very small number of experiences differently than you would.

[The Reality Salesman01]

Usually delusional people show signs of their problem in multiple contexts, like interpersonal relations. I don't see how you could claim that an otherwise competing person is delusional just because they have interpreted a very small number of experiences differently than you would.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Are you saying that the amount of things that people mutually believe are a determinant with regards to the rationality of the belief in question?

I'm not sure that my interpretation of the experience is relevant. My interpretatoin either accurately represents reality, or it doesn't. What I think doesn't contribute anything to understanding whether or not something is an accurate representation of reality. There must be some criteria that determines whether or not a belief is delusional or otherwise.

The entire world could think it's a good idea to rub poison ivy on their genitals, I could disagree, but my disagreeing wouldn't be the standard by which an objective 3rd party would determine whether or not their belief is delusional, would it? It must be something else.

[Neo-Scholastic]

All I am saying is that delusions are a sign of series mental illness. The symptoms of insanity are not limited to only one narrow set of beliefs.

[The Reality Salesman01]

Whether or not that exact scenario would happen is irrelevant to the fact that we're having a very similar conversation right now.

I was explaining why the question is so bizarre to most people. Context man.

You and I both recognize that it is bizarre. The question is that why is it bizarre? The reason why it is bizarre is analogous to what I’m saying about the position you are defending.

Neither you, Stat, nor I are concerned about whether or not we're actually having a conversation, otherwise, why have we been responding?

Because 1) I make the assumption that reality is probably like what I perceive and 2) Even if it isn't, I find doing something better than doing nothing at all.

I agree. We share the mutual assumption that drives our passion for understanding things that we pile on top of that. Our assumption gives us a bubble. Within that bubble exists reality as we experience it. The experience of this shared reality rests within the bubble.

Within this mutually shared assumption of the bubble that we call “our experience of reality “ exists beliefs. The beliefs exist within the bubble, and they either accurately represent our assumption, or they do not.
I am on board with changing the assumption should we find reason to do so. But that’s not what we’re talking about. What it seems like you’re saying is that while the bubble certainly seems to be the best explanation we have, we should not try to understand things within it, since we cannot be sure that the bubble is accurate. Then why discuss anything?
Gravity is an assumption that drives our science. If a claim is made that defies gravity that cannot be tested, do we entertain it as an equal representation of reality since the assumption of gravity cannot be proven to be absolute?
If not, why?

We've all conceded that our experience of reality exists.

Well, at least mine does, because it's an incorrigible proposition. I only assume everyone else does too.

And I agree. This mutual assumption is what gives way to our discussion. Within this assumption, there are things that either represent our understanding that drives our assumption, or they do not.
Like gravity, do we abandon the assumption in the face of a contradicting claim, or do we evaluate the conflicting claim on the merit of its worth? We have good reasons to assume that gravity is reliable, if a claim that is made that does not fit in the reality built upon our assumption, by what standard do we determine whether or not it is a delusion, or otherwise?
Gravity is an assumption. What standard of claims warrants credence with regards to gravity? All are equally plausible, or are some more so than others? Why?

We conceded that this experience is governed upon a set of principles.

Where did we agree to that?

My mistake, I apologize. I don’t know why I thought that we’d discussed that. At any rate, would you agree that if I extracted a few crucial parts of your brain, your experience of reality would become skewed? One principle that your experience of reality is contingent upon is that you have a functional brain, no?
Principle-an important underlying law or assumption required in a system of thought.

We've conceded that these principles are nothing without our faculties for perception that make us aware of them.

And where did we agree to that?

Keeping in line with the same definition of principle above:

Because 1) I make the assumption that reality is probably like what I perceive and 2) Even if it isn't, I find doing something better than doing nothing at all.

Since I didn’t present the previous contention for your approval, I will wait. It seems that the latter would be of very little value without a functional brain, but none the less, I want to hear your opinion.

No, we assume that. The reason no one would bring that up in the football game scenario is because everyone tacitly assumes all sorts of things about reality, even if we can't actually prove it (uniformity of nature, realism, etc.)

BINGO! That is my point. Now shift things to our present conversation. We are mutually assuming the same things. We are assuming that our experience of reality is congruent with one another. That being established, just like in the football game, we can discuss things that either accurately represent our mutual assumption and things that do not. In football, there are governing principles that define the events.
I’ll await your response, but in my opinion, our experience of reality is governed by different principles (functioning brain, the assumption that we would not deceive ourselves, that we trust our senses..etc.)
Things either fall in line with this, or they do not. By what standard are things determined as rational or otherwise with regards to things we believe, but cannot prove?

Well, you're right that they're assumptions. If we could prove them, we wouldn't need the assumptions.

We can’t prove gravity in the sense you are describing either, but nonetheless, someone attempting to defy it at the expense of their life carries with it the recognition that their assumption is not an accurate representation of reality, and is something else. Why do we mutually recognize this to be true?

But if I were to be convinced that I could fly, would I be delusional? If so, by measure of what other standard than the mutual assumption that is shared by all of us within the paradigm of human experience?

Nothing. It's just the *necessary* assumption that you aren't delusional.

My assuming that I’m not delusional, necessary or not, does not make it accurate.
What makes some assumptions delusional, while others are not?
Can someone assume that are not delusional, and in fact be delusional? Did you see the video? Mothers poisoning their babies and watching foam come from their mouths as they die? You and I both recognize that there is something inherently wrong about the state in which one does something like that, and yet, they assume they are not delusional.

I’ll ask again. What standard do we determine that they are not delusional, and if there is none, how do we justify our reaction to it?

If you are delusional, do you have to know it in order for it to be true? If yes, then how can you trust the reasoning that led you to conclude you're delusional? If no, then you cannot rule it out other than by assumption.

No. That’s my point. People that we deem as delusional do not know they are. Nonetheless, a third party such as ourselves are able to recognize that there is something inherently wrong with their assumption. Why is this? What standard gives rise to our ability to recognize the accuracy of some assumptions and the blatant lack of correlation to reality that is inherent to others?
Either all assumptions are equally valid, or they are not.
If they are not, by what means do we determine their accuracy?

---

All I am saying is that delusions are a sign of series mental illness. The symptoms of insanity are not limited to only one narrow set of beliefs.

That seems too broad of a statement, and changes the word "delusional" for "insanity".

What line distinguishes the insane from the sane?

By what standard do we determine the acts of a man that are considered to be sane?

What makes something a serious mental illness from a minor mental illness?

Can a physically healthy brain be influenced by ideas alone that are not accurate representations of reality?

If so, by what standard do we determine that they have misconstrued reality?

If there is no standard then how do you reconcile your position against poisoning babies as seen in the video?

If there is no distinguishable standard, then all must be allowed.

You are wandering into Euthyphro's dilemma if you say God is the standard, and are walking into a world of more questions you don't have answers to.

[Neo-Scholastic]

The severity of mental illness is a continuum. TMU the only standard is the individuals ability to function in society. Seems like you want to simplify the issue to justify antireligious bigotry.

---

People can be mistaken without being delusional.

[MindForgedManacle]

You and I both recognize that it is bizarre. The question is that why is it bizarre? The reason why it is bizarre is analogous to what I’m saying about the position you are defending.

And my answer was that it's bizarre because we tend to ignore these assumptions and probably don't initially know the reasoning as to why they're assumptions.

Much of the rest of your post is confusing some things. Stal's and my point was you can't use "You could be completely delusional" as an argument against theists any more than they can use it against you. Gravity is a fact, given certain assumptions. But even without those assumptions, that I perceive that I experience the effects of gravity is indisputable.

If there is no distinguishable standard, then all must be allowed.

You are wandering into Euthyphro's dilemma if you say God is the standard, and are walking into a world of more questions you don't have answers to.

Actually, saying that God's essential nature is an answer to at least the simpler formulation of the Euthyphro Dilemma. In fact, that's how you solve the dilemma, period. For a secular consequentialist, why is negatively imacting well-being 'evil'? Because that's what they MEAN when they're talking about morality in that view. The only real use of the Euthyphro Dilemma is to expose the language barrier between theistic and secular moral discussions.

[The Reality Salesman01]

Let me first say that I am enjoying this conversation very much, and I appreciate your willingness to have it. I don't know a lot of people outside of this site willing to talk about these things, and it's coversations like these that make me love this place.

You've got good ideas, and I enjoy this stuff!

Stal's and my point was you can't use "You could be completely delusional" as an argument against theists any more than they can use it against you. Gravity is a fact, given certain assumptions. But even without those assumptions, that I perceive that I experience the effects of gravity is indisputable.

Great! It feels like we're making progress toward a common ground here. I guess I was misunderstood if you thought I was saying that somebody was TOTALLY delusional on all aspects. That's not what I was saying at all. I'm talking about a specific instance. That's why I was using gravity as my example.

I could be completely rational with respect to all other aspects of what correlates with reality, and still be motivated by a delusional belief that would compel me to jump of a building. That belief is a delusion. It wouldn't necessarily follow that my entire perception of reality is skewed in all aspects. Only in the case that I thought I could defy gravity. Does that make sense now?

Actually, saying that God's essential nature is an answer to at least the simpler formulation of the Euthyphro Dilemma. In fact, that's how you solve the dilemma, period.

That was directed at Chad, because I anticipated him using that as a response. Nevertheless, it's a fun conversation to have.

Interesting. Here's my twist on the dilemma: Is something delusional by fact that God deems it to be so? Or does God not recognize things that are delusional in accordance with some other standard that dictates to God the difference between rationality and delusion?


If it is the former, then God's judgement determines what is delusional for arbitrary reasons known only to God, and anything can be determined as rational, including the poisoning of babies. The only criteria would be that God has to deem it as a rational behavior. This belief carries with it some serious implications as you can see from the video.

If it's the latter, we're no closer to understanding the standard by which we should be measuring things, as it is just an extension of God's mystery and just another thing that needs an explanation in addition to what "god" means!

Both leave us wondering whether or not there is a standard by which we humans can measure things as being rational or otherwise.

---

The severity of mental illness is a continuum. TMU the only standard is the individuals ability to function in society. Seems like you want to simplify the issue to justify antireligious bigotry.

---

People can be mistaken without being delusional.

I think you are anticipating it as being antireligious, but if we make sense of something, and it has antireligious implications, would you be inclined to ignore what makes sense on the grounds that it would negatively impact religion?

What makes something a mistake, rather than a delusion?

Perhaps, favoring information that only reinforces the mistake while intentionally ignoring conflicting information that could possibly change one's mind? (being blinded by confirmation bias)

Is the difference between misconstruing reality and holding a belief that is a delusion a willingness to revise one's beliefs in the event that information is presented that shows one's belief to be consistent with that of a delusion?

You seem to be avoiding the conclusion out of fear of the implications it would have on religion.

Information that shows religion to be consistent with the product of a delusion is not a good reason to continue believing that religion is not a product of a religion.

That, in fact, sounds like a delusion.

I don't think I understood your objection.

[Mister Agenda]

Usually delusional people show signs of their problem in multiple contexts, like interpersonal relations. I don't see how you could claim that an otherwise competing person is delusional just because they have interpreted a very small number of experiences differently than you would.

True. There is a difference between being mistaken about something and being delusional. 'Squirrels report my activities to the NSA' is a delusion. 'I believe what I was raised to believe and what most people important to me believe' may be a mistake, it may reflect a failure to examine the belief closely and objectively, but it's not a delusion in the sense of being a symptom of mental illness.

Until fairly recently, I believed Daddy Longlegs were dangerously poisonous. If I trusted my parents and pastor more than anonymous scientists on such matters, I might still believe it.