Delusion

[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?