Ship of Fools: Purgatory: Does religion require self-delusion?

Thread: Purgatory: Does religion require self-delusion? Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001049

Posted by strathclydezero (# 180) on :

Blind faith is self-delusional, almost by definition. Christianity demands blind faith. Self-delusion isn't an insult - it can be argued it's one of the greatest virtues of humanity. People who are emotionally or morally weak couldn't recover from life traumas if they didn't have the possibility of self-delusion. People convincing themselves that their marriage is OK, or that living with an illness is OK are self-delusional. It's part of our humanity which helps us to survive. We define ourselves within our own boxes to make life that bit more bearable. Belief in God makes life more bearable, I have never met a religions person who says it doesn't bring them some form of comfort.

At the risk or repeating myself, I'm not taking delusion, or self-delusion, as negative things, but rather I'm interested in whether religion, and in particular Christian belief is compatible with realism, and whether Christianity has anything to offer people who cannot find a way of getting all the answers from a book.

[ 08. January 2006, 21:58: Message edited by: Erin ]

Posted by Alanski Creskovich (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by strathclydezero:
Christianity demands blind faith.

I certainly wouldn't go that far. Christianity demands faith, but there's nothing blind about it. Faith isn't wishful thinking, but an assurance of what is based on some form of evidence ... a step into the unknown maybe but not a leap into the dark and certainly one not taken without any basis.

Posted by Attilla of ye steppe (# 4205) on :

Delusion: 'A belief held in the face of evidence to the contrary that is resistant to all reason.'
I am not aware of any prima facie evidence that God does not exist, that Jesus was not born was not crucified or that he did not rise from the grave. I know of no evidence that God does not love me and that he will not go on loving me for ever. However I am only an ignorant peasant so perhaps you could enlighten me.

Posted by Pops Gregorios (# 310) on :

Sorry SCZ ... you're not offering a critique of my kind of Christianity. Not blind, not thumb sucking, not a book, not a survival strategy. Too many "nots." I suspect what kind of Christianity might be involved though but I won't go headlong into that. It's just not my thing.

Posted by strathclydezero (# 180) on :

There seem to be lines here which are blurred - between self-delusion and critical realism - highlighted by both Alan and Fr.G. However English Ploughboy has kindly illustrated my point delightfully. Of the little I know of ancient religious texts, they are never intended to be read as history or evidence of any kind. They are myth and metaphor, poetry sculpted by the author for the preservation of ancient wisdom. For me there are no certainties in this world, everything has a level of trust, and trust has to be gained in anything. Are religious institutions places which hand down the box in which to cocoon yourself, or are they places to critically assess life and the world? Or is the spectrum broader?

Posted by Papiovavitch (# 4201) on :

Athiesm requires faith and involves unprovable assumptions about God.

Posted by Alanski Creskovich (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by strathclydezero:
Of the little I know of ancient religious texts, they are never intended to be read as history or evidence of any kind.

Not even evidence of the nature of God and how he interacts with people, and how he thinks people should respond to him and others?

Posted by strathclydezero (# 180) on :

Ah - I see - the nitpick crowd are out. What about tackling the central question in a meaningful way, or does that require sufficient thought to suggest that faith is never fully worked out, and all that that entails ... ?

Posted by Alanski Creskovich (# 31) on :

Faith can never be fully worked out. If that faith is in an infinite then it's illogical to even assume it's possible.

That's a long way from saying faith is either blind or delusional.

Posted by lapsed heathen (# 4403) on :

You're right of course, it's a form of self delusion, any belief is. If it was'nt it would be a hypotheses rather than a belife. So what? the most sane people are the most likely to be self delusional, by some standard or other.
And thats the real question, is my delusion any less real than the delusion that contradicts mine?

Posted by strathclydezero (# 180) on :

We all have faith. I have faith that the train station will exist tomorrow morning. I have faith that I'll get paid. Choosing to belong to an established religion is quite different and removes the "working it out for yourself". Is this self-delusional?

[cross post with tommy]

[ 07. March 2004, 21:38: Message edited by: strathclydezero ]

Posted by Glasnost at altar (# 5077) on :

To a degree, it has to be. Much of what is taught (in all religions) is taught as fact, when it cannot possibly withstand rational analysis. But the instruction is to have faith. The degree to which something is accepted as fact, or taken to be illustrative varies between various groups within a religion. So far as I can see, the more fundamentalist the belief, the more blind faith is required, because everything is taken as fact.
But I might be wrong.

[ 07. March 2004, 21:40: Message edited by: Glasnost at altar ]

Posted by Vikki Pollard (# 5548) on :

Strath, it might be helpful to make a distinction between blind faith and self-delusion to avoid people feeling they have to be overly defensive.

As for your question, I think my answer is that religion does not require self-delusion, but it does seem to be involved at times. Looking back, I believe that there was a lot of self-delusion involved in my case. However, that doesn't mean I can speak for others. It's not always helpful to extrapolate from one's own experience - that way Fundamentalism lies...

I know what you're getting at. The Christianity I came into as a new convert required me to believe that my emotions and sexuality were not nearly as important to me as they were to people who didn't know Jesus. I accepted totally that as a woman I was not able to hold certain positions in the Church community (um, ministerial, not sexual [Hot and Hormonal]

). I believed that everyone around me was acting purely in the interests of everybody else, and never put themselves first.

Worst, I accepted that everything I was told was to be believed without question. This last, I believed without question - as I was taught. I learnt that people with Southern accents who had been to the right Churches were closer to God (and I don't say that as a joke, it was what we were implicitly taught, and much damage it did to many of us). Later on I came to believe that at events such as New Wine, all the manifestations of the Holy Spirit were just that - no hysteria involved at any point for any person. I had a hotline to God, naturally, and knew that either anything I prayed for would happen, OR else, God had a get-out clause and there was some reason it couldn't be.
Oh, and of course, I was right, and everyone who disagreed was in error.

Just a smidgeon of self-delusion in parts, I would dare to suggest.

(And that was mainstream Anglicanism! [Frown]

)

Posted by strathclydezero (# 180) on :

I'm interested in the theme of self-delusion, because it opens up the idea that an individualistic liberal faith could be just as deluded as a conforming fundamentalist belief. Perhaps forming a world view of any sorts requires a level of self-delusion.

Posted by Papiovavitch (# 4201) on :

To expand on Lapsed Heathen's point a tad - I am quite sure that some of my views are self-delusion. Freud spoke quite a lot about sublimination as an avoidance of things one doesn't want to face. I can't remember if it was also Freud who said "man cannot face too much reality" but it may well have been. I am sure he meant women as well [Razz]

On the other hand, how do I know which beliefs of mine are caused by self-delusion? How does anybody? We could get into radical doubt as, scz, I think it was the logical conclusion of your arguement that drove Decartes into doubting literally everything - even his own very existence.

I am too tired atm to get all Cartesian and, in any case, people have a tendency to muddle on regardless. It is both one of their most admirable and one of their most irratating traits. The question is a tad academic really. The theist thinks the athiest is delusional and vice versa.

I don't think we can ever be 100% certain of anything - but I do feel that if we notice our beliefs and attitudes changing over time than hopefully we are not simply braindead.

(spelling is of the devil. Always was, always will be)

[ 07. March 2004, 21:46: Message edited by: Papiovavitch ]

Posted by Vikki Pollard (# 5548) on :

BTW can anyone tell me - does this thread still exist when I'm not reading it? [Frown]

Posted by Papiovavitch (# 4201) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vikki Pollard:
BTW can anyone tell me - does this thread still exist when I'm not reading it?

Well I think it does, but how do I know? [Razz]

Posted by Alanski Creskovich (# 31) on :

I may be mistaken in my beliefs, and they are therefore always open to reassessment in the face of new circumstances. Even if I'm wrong, that doesn't mean I'm deliberately believing something that I know to be false ... ie: self-delusional.

Posted by Pops Gregorios (# 310) on :

Dear SCZ

The absolute all inclusive nature of these claims staggers me. Do you really infer ALL?!

quote:
Of the little I know of ancient religious texts, they are never intended to be read as history or evidence of any kind. They are myth and metaphor, poetry sculpted by the author for the preservation of ancient wisdom. For me there are no certainties in this world, everything has a level of trust, and trust has to be gained in anything.

quote:
Choosing to belong to an established religion is quite different and removes the "working it out for yourself".

All of this is born out of a radical agnosticism which predicates delusion of anything excluded by its own definition. You try and make the illusion acceptable but the reality is that your aforementioned premise is false. It is false because it is a contention, not a proof. I can take it, therefore, as a personal position ... but it is still misconceived as a definitive statement for all that. However, if you present a personal position as the only dependable outlook on life your presentation has made itself watertight against any counter-proposal.

[ 07. March 2004, 21:54: Message edited by: Pops Gregorios ]

Posted by lapsed heathen (# 4403) on :

I think their is a danger in working it out yourself to become compleetly self deluding. Any working out is best done in reference to other peoples working out.

Papio;

quote:
but I do feel that if we notice our beliefs and attitudes changing over time than hopefully we are not simply braindead.

And if you still hold the same faith you did years ago it just shows you learned nothing from the life God gave you. Sadly true of too many people.

Posted by strathclydezero (# 180) on :

Semantics Alan. We can't all be right - in fact - we're almost certainly almost all wrong.

Posted by Papiovavitch (# 4201) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alanski Creskovich:
I may be mistaken in my beliefs, and they are therefore always open to reassessment in the face of new circumstances. Even if I'm wrong, that doesn't mean I'm deliberately believing something that I know to be false ... ie: self-delusional.

Are you sure self-delusion means deliberately choosing to believe something you know to be false? I know it can mean that, but can't it also mean giving yourself or a view that appeals to you too much benefit of the doubt?

Posted by Martin PC not & unOrthodox (# 368) on :

I'd like to try, Strath. I'd like to try. T'trouble is, my faith - the substance of things hoped for and itself the gift and work of God - or that valid part of it if I try and be objectively faithful ... isn't blind and all religions apart from Christianity are irrelevant [Smile]

I'm sure all other religions and many ways of claiming to be Christian are self deluding. And that self delusion and blind faith are part of my make up. But the work of God in me, the presence of the triune God in me, with me, regardless of the toxic, cracked pot that I am, the ambulatory toilet from Trainspotting, is not a delusion, despite my fear that it is.

The truest thing I'm coming to know is that despite the truth of what I am and what you say, despite the lifetime of ammunition I've given Satan to accurately use against me, he doesn't have to lie about me, God loves and actually approves of me. He actually LIKES me. That's so outrageous.

If there's a God, and their incontrovertibly, empirically, demonstrably is, only fools like Dawkins can be in denial of that, He is the Christian God and He loves me and you mate. Desperately. Effectively. Individually, personally. From conception. If not before.

You can rationalize and doubt and intellectualize ALLLL day long and hang out here with fellow minded eejuts like me, but at the end of the day you're a sinner like me who needs your legs breaking or whatever it takes to get you to surrender, again, like me, to God.

You've got no where else to go mate. Repent TO belief. Behave as if you believed. Go to Church, say the words. You'll start to mean them. And whatever you do, don't challenge God to do what He likes with you. He will.

What do I know, eh? I'm externalizing the last four months of my life. A 50 year old burnout who thinks He's discovered God again.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Glasnost at altar:
Much of what is taught (in all religions) is taught as fact, when it cannot possibly withstand rational analysis.

What do you mean by 'rational analysis'?

The central claim of Christianity is that Jesus was raised from the dead. That will stand up to 'rational analysis' - it's the best explanation of the facts surrounding that 'event'. Once that's in place, the central planks of Christianity follow quite happily.

And THE central question is what happens after we die - in the long term (10,000 years upwardss) anything else is a detail..... The resurrection provides a coherent and not delusional answer to that question. (IMO!)

Posted by Alanski Creskovich (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Papiovavitch:
Are you sure self-delusion means deliberately choosing to believe something you know to be false?

Well, that's the most common use of the phrase in my experience.

And, scz, I'm not sure it is semantics. Yes, we disagree and so therefore the chances I'm mistaken are high. Accepting that is realistic. If I held to the position that I'm right, even though logic says I may well be wrong, then I'd accept that a charge of being self-delusional may be appropriate.

Posted by Papiovavitch (# 4201) on :

Lapsed Heathen mate, trust me, I believe very few of the things I believed 5 years ago. [Biased]

Posted by Papiovavitch (# 4201) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alanski Creskovich:

quote:
Originally posted by Papiovavitch:
Are you sure self-delusion means deliberately choosing to believe something you know to be false?
Well, that's the most common use of the phrase in my experience.

And, scz, I'm not sure it is semantics. Yes, we disagree and so therefore the chances I'm mistaken are high. Accepting that is realistic. If I held to the position that I'm right, even though logic says I may well be wrong, then I'd accept that a charge of being self-delusional may be appropriate.

Hmm, I have heard people say that. but then I have heard them say that about faith as well. I suppose that I am very well aware aware how easy it can be, for me personally, to believe things I want to be true, without having full evidence - but that doesn't mean I am choosing to eschew logic.

Posted by Grits (# 4169) on :

My theory is that, until one can totally remove "self" from the equation, it is, indeed, hard to become completely invested in religious faith. I think that was the hardest lesson Jesus tried to teach His followers. They just had trouble letting go of this present world. We still do, and we are held back spiritually because of it.

Posted by Alanski Creskovich (# 31) on :

Papio ... I'll say again, I don't have full evidence. That means I'm not entirely convinced (rationally) because I know that there is more evidence that might alter my position. Considering how my faith has developed over the past 20y or so since I first learnt of Christ, further development is a certainty (and I'd hesitate to say I have a living faith if it didn't).

The evidence I do have all points in basically the same direction ... and even when the immediate evidence doesn't, my recollection of the past and the faith that has engendered holds me firm. That is what I believe faith is, if it changed with every puff of wind in another direction it wouldn't be faith.

Posted by Papiovavitch (# 4201) on :

Alan - I think we are disagreeing about the meaning of words, rather than anything more substantial.

Posted by Mousethiefovich (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by strathclydezero:
Of the little I know of ancient religious texts, they are never intended to be read as history or evidence of any kind. They are myth and metaphor, poetry sculpted by the author for the preservation of ancient wisdom.

Wow that's impressive that you know so much about the intent of these ancient authors, where thousands of years of critics, scholars, saints and sages are still undecided. Talk about self-delusion.

Posted by strathclydezero (# 180) on :

I knew you'd find a bone to pick Mousethief. [Big Grin]

Posted by Martin PC not & unOrthodox (# 368) on :

Oooooh, you can be rougher than a cat's tongue sometimes Alexis. Or do I mean sharper than a hound's tooth?

Posted by Pavlov T Harriovich (# 320) on :

Mousethiefovich scores again in his 10,260th post! Grits also made an excellent point. That egocentred self is all that comes between us all and God. Only as it is progressively surrenderd to Him do we grow in faith. It is in no way blind.

Posted by DaveC (# 155) on :

Faith in anything - a religion, or some other sort of world-view - involves both choice and risk. We choose to accept a certain view of the world, and go on to live in a way that accords with that view. In doing so, we run the risk that at some point the world-view will prove inadequate (in fact, this risk is a certainty - our world-view, religious or otherwise, will fail us). This is self-delusional if we fail to live according to the world-view we espouse, or if we fail to accept the inadequacy of our world-view. But if we are honest about how we live out our faith, and we are prepared for it to develop, or even for it to be torn apart and rebuilt, then we are not deluding anyone.

quote:
Originally posted by scz:
Choosing to belong to an established religion is quite different and removes the "working it out for yourself".

Not necessarily - I belong to an established religion (C of E) which means I am working things out in the light of a tradition - in fact, several traditions. I am also working things out as part of a community, and while this can be restricting, it can also be liberating as it gives me a secure base for my explorations.

Posted by Bonzo (# 2481) on :

There is a point, as Alan says, that incomplete evidence leaves us with an alternative. Either we must remain agnostic and be happy with that (can people really be happy with that), or we must explore the uncertainties.

The only way that different faith positions can be properly explored (IMO), is for us to actually inhabit those faith positions. It's much more than a view from the outside - a cold analysis of data, but it's a testing of 'what works for me' by actually living life as if our faith is true. Trust starts small and grows bigger if we aren't let down by it. We trust, not because we are deluded, nor because we have certainty, but because we need something that we haven't got and we keep trying to get it.

We don't have to let go of the fact that we could be mistaken, but we do have to live (at least to some extent) as if we are not. Does that make sense?

Posted by Archbishop Seraphim of Uglich (# 3251) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Attilla of ye steppe:
Delusion: 'A belief held in the face of evidence to the contrary that is resistant to all reason.'
I am not aware of any prima facie evidence that God does not exist, that Jesus was not born was not crucified or that he did not rise from the grave. I know of no evidence that God does not love me and that he will not go on loving me for ever. However I am only an ignorant peasant so perhaps you could enlighten me.

Hosting

Great pun, English Ploughboy. Could you please record your usual name in your sig. so that others may revel in its punniness?

Archbishop Seraphim of Uglich, more usually

Duo Seraphim, Purgatory Host

.... but this week you may refer to me as "Your Beatitude".

Posted by Mousethiefovich (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by strathclydezero:
I knew you'd find a bone to pick Mousethief.

Arrogance is one of my hot-buttons. Ironic, ain't it?

Posted by nutmeg (# 5297) on :

I found this quote by KAHLIL GIBRAN

"Faith is an oasis in the heart which can never be reached by the caravan of thinking"

I think that is lovely. As to whether it is true.. well that is what we are debating isn't it?

Posted by Quizmaster (# 1435) on :

quote:
Originally posted by strathclydezero:
Semantics Alan. We can't all be right - in fact - we're almost certainly almost all wrong.

In solitude I can relate to my God and the world is benificent and peaceful.

It is only when meeting "religious authority" that my spirit is weakened and I begin to doubt the power of love as 'the rules' take over.

Posted by lapsed heathen (# 4403) on :

Ender's shadow;

quote:
The central claim of Christianity is that Jesus was raised from the dead. That will stand up to 'rational analysis' - it's the best explanation of the facts surrounding that 'event'

Actualy it's the least likly explanation. For one, it's unprecedented, two, it's not been replicated and three, it's more likly someone removed and hid the corpse.
A faith is not a working asumption, it has to be taken as fact. If we ignore the obvious delusion involved in this 'leap of faith' we are in danger of presuming too mutch; Extremist fundamentalism stems from this position. Danger, danger !!

Posted by Kontakion (# 473) on :

A darned good question, SCZ. I wish more people would realise the power of the telling of myth in religion, and not have to keep thinking it has to be completely factually true or they have to reject it. (I have an illustrated book of world myths and find it fascinating how they compare and contrast with early biblical accounts of how life started, etc.)

I see in my own faith a creative tension between my belief and never being 100% sure of most of what is peddled as 'fact' in Christian Teaching. And I rather like that creative tension and find it positive and life-enhancing. In fact, I don't think I'd want it any other way..... Wouldn't it be boring if we knew all the answers? And this sort of faith is not a prop - props are for people who need certainty. How can you prop yourself up on jelly?!

Posted by humblebumski (# 4358) on :

Hmm.

I guess what SCZ and some others are saying is that some degree of self-delusion is inevitable in life.

I guess this may be so.

But unless I've misunderstood you, SCZ, you're going further this and implying that self-delusion is to be actively encouraged. If so - no, no, no. [Disappointed]

If faith is not about getting ourselves in touch with reality, then it is worthless. And, I'm no therapist, but I can't imagine that the philosophy of self-delusion is terribly popular in the therapeudic world either, as you have suggested, SCZ.

---
humblebumski
(normally just plain humblebum)

Posted by Alanski Creskovich (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Papiovavitch:
Alan - I think we are disagreeing about the meaning of words, rather than anything more substantial.

That's quite possible. But perhaps trying to agree on, say, "what does 'faith' mean?" is worthy of its own thread.

Posted by strathclydezero (# 180) on :

quote:
Originally posted by humblebumski:
But unless I've misunderstood you, SCZ, you're going further this and implying that self-delusion is to be actively encouraged. If so - no, no, no.

No. I said that it's an important and integral part of humanity. It's hardly something that can be encouraged but while some people will find it dishonest others will take great comfort from it.

Posted by humblebumski (# 4358) on :

Okay, thanks for clarifying, SCZ.

I do wonder what happens to these people who are drawing comfort from their own self-delusion when they realise that that is what they are doing. I really don't think that deliberate and intentional self-delusion is at all healthy.

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

I... agree with... zzz -- wha? Oh, yeah... Alan and Mousethief and Fr. G and .... snore... Ender's Shadow...

David
really felt he ought to say something but everyone else beat him to it, gosh darn it! [Waterworks]

Posted by strathclydezero (# 180) on :

You're self-delusional as well then CM. [Biased]

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

In good company, then. [Smile]

Posted by Cheesy* (# 3330) on :

And whats so wrong about a little bit of delusion scz? Maybe the truth is hard and we can't cope with it in its entirety.

[A bit like Zaphod Beedlebrox and the vortex machine which was a multi-dimensional representation of the entire universe with a little arrow saying 'you are here'. Most people went mad when they were shown how totally insignificant they were.]

[ref: Hitch-hikers Trilogy]

C

Posted by Glaz (# 3256) on :

Am I the only one who agrees with strathclydezero and thinks that pretty much everything we know is counterfeit? Does that make me existentialist and postmodern and all that? I rather think it does. Still, it's important to come from a faith perspective because Christianity has very important things to say to the world and do for the world and BE for the world...and I have faith that God revealed himself in Jesus Christ, historically in the Middle East and universally in creation and wants human beings to celebrate the spirit we gain from seeing God as just and indwelling in the world.

Blind faith? Not quite, but parts of my faith are obviously pretty blind.

Let's all go read Jean-Paul Sartre. [Biased]

Posted by humblebumski (# 4358) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Glaz:
...and I have faith that God revealed himself in Jesus Christ, historically in the Middle East and universally in creation and wants human beings to celebrate the spirit we gain from seeing God as just and indwelling in the world.

Yes, Glaz, but you're deluding yourself by saying this (as you just established).

Posted by strathclydezero (# 180) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
And whats so wrong about a little bit of delusion scz? Maybe the truth is hard and we can't cope with it in its entirety.

Where did I say delusion was a bad thing?

Posted by Glaz (# 3256) on :

quote:
Originally posted by humblebumski:

quote:
Originally posted by Glaz:
...and I have faith that God revealed himself in Jesus Christ, historically in the Middle East and universally in creation and wants human beings to celebrate the spirit we gain from seeing God as just and indwelling in the world.
Yes, Glaz, but you're deluding yourself by saying this (as you just established).

Well I said "pretty much everything we know is counterfeit". There's not much we can really rely on and if we can, it's to an extent. I guess I'm saying we HAVE to be deluded to believe there is actually one, uniform answer to this all. Which is why faith is so important.

Of course, people place their different faith in different things. These can be worse or better pragmatically for the world and people.

Posted by humblebumski (# 4358) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Glaz:
Of course, people place their different faith in different things. These can be worse or better pragmatically for the world and people.

Yes indeed.

But cutting to the chase, Glaz, are you happy enough to admit that the statement:

quote:
...and I have faith that God revealed himself in Jesus Christ, historically in the Middle East and universally in creation and wants human beings to celebrate the spirit we gain from seeing God as just and indwelling in the world.

is self-delusional?

(with the afore-mentioned proviso that belief in this delusion may or may not have some pragmatic benefits)

[ 08. March 2004, 17:42: Message edited by: humblebumski ]

Posted by Glaz (# 3256) on :

Yes, of course, in a sense it is. Because I wasn't there and I want the historical facts to fit what I want to be the case. I have faith that they were the case, but I wasn't there.

Posted by Priest (# 4313) on :

Still at it eh SCZ?

So the people who claim a real relationship with the Christ are delusional? Or are the others in denial?

Blind faith? No, not for me thanks, my faith comes from knowledge and experience of the real living God, without experiencing God I would have no faith, I'm not one to believe on the basis of what feels right, maybe mores the pity.

Posted by Vikki Pollard (# 5548) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & unOrthodox:

If there's a God, and their incontrovertibly, empirically, demonstrably is, only fools like Dawkins can be in denial of that, He is the Christian God SNIP

Um... Why?

Priest, some - in fact many - would base their experience of God on feeelings.

Woo, this is all so complicated!

Posted by lapsed heathen (# 4403) on :

Glaz;

quote:
Because I wasn't there and I want the historical facts to fit what I want to be the case. I have faith that they were the case,

Priest;

quote:
without experiencing God I would have no faith,

Blessed are those who belive and have not seen, or words to that effect.

Posted by Pops Gregorios (# 310) on :

What Priest said. [Overused]

What do you have to say to my earlier objection SCZ?

Posted by humblebumski (# 4358) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Glaz:
Yes, of course, in a sense it is. Because I wasn't there and I want the historical facts to fit what I want to be the case. I have faith that they were the case, but I wasn't there.

Hmmm. I would have thought that the word "delusion" usually goes further than meaning "believing something without conclusive evidence".

I was thinking more in terms of:

delude: to make someone believe something that is not true; to deceive.
eg He's deluding himself if he thinks he's going to be promoted this year.

Posted by Timotheos the Obscure (# 292) on :

Sure, all concepts and beliefs are delusions in the (rather Buddhist) sense that they are constructions through which we experience reality. There is no such thing as an uninterpreted fact. But to apply that to religious belief while implicitly exempting other categories of belief renders the proposition trivial if not tautological. You've just defined "delusional" in such a way that there is only one answer to your question (as you more or less acknowledged in your first sentence). Furthermore, you loaded the dice by insisting on "blind faith," when I don't think we would all agree that faith is necessarily blind (I wouldn't).

Bonzo put it very well:

quote:
The only way that different faith positions can be properly explored (IMO), is for us to actually inhabit those faith positions. It's much more than a view from the outside - a cold analysis of data, but it's a testing of 'what works for me' by actually living life as if our faith is true.

(

)

This is faith as an experiment--adopt a hypothesis and try it out. Not blindness.

Timothy

Posted by lapsed heathen (# 4403) on :

Timotheos the Obscure;

quote:
This is faith as an experiment--adopt a hypothesis and try it out.

And what of people who didn't go looking for a faith but experienced it first? Is faith a choice or a calling? To what extent is it self delusional to be true to what you are, even if this means beliving the unproveable. Is it not more self realising than self deluding?
Adresed to Scz as much as to anyone and everyone.

Posted by Martin PC not & unOrthodox (# 368) on :

Because He's the best case God.

Posted by Christian Allen (# 5539) on :

There is another word(s) for necessary delusion: consensual reality. Any church is a great example of consensual reality. Together a group of people can make something true for themselves by living their lives according to what they profess and practice. “Wherever two or more are gathered in my name, I am also there” could also be a way of saying that if two or more believe (create an understanding about me, even if it is just that I exist) then God/Jesus exists. Is it possible that many of the scriptures could be read as a metaphysical guide to creating consensual reality? And is it possible that the Plan is that we come to the objective reality (truth) only through cultivating the art of creating consensual reality that bears a close resemblance to it? “Let’s say” that the objective reality includes Evil vs. Good. Like God, we are also Creators, and we create a consensual reality that fills in the details of the Evil vs. Good scenario. Or “let’s say” that Jesus died and then came back to life, by saying that this has meaning, by defining and practicing rituals around sacraments or ideas at all, we define the truth of it, as the truth exists for us, here and now. It’s not God’s truth, but we are not God. God exists as/in objective reality, we in consensual realities. Maybe our consensual reality can reflect part of God’s objective reality.

God could exist whether we believe or not. But to talk about God, maybe even to experience God, I have to use words and rituals (like prayer). Those words and rituals were, no matter how you look at it, created by man, at least on some level, even if we agree that they were “inspired” by God. Ultimately, this seems like a conversation mostly concerned with semantics. “Truth” is a word that we define, at least as far it concerns us here and now. How we define it and whether or not our definition is close to anything objective (outside our knowledge or opinion) is always going to result in a question rather than a statement, as in: Am I right?

Also, there could be personal reality. That is the calling of faith, the experience of God on a personal level. Again, not God's truth, but ours.

I like consensual reality, b/c it implies that we create and partisipate in a certain truth, with intention and for a purpose, rather than delude/deceive ourselves.

(btw, I like the ship of fools because it doesn’t concern itself with creating a consensual reality, it seems like for the most part it just examines the ones that exist. Of course, all groups of people interacting create some kind of consensual reality, maybe I should start a thread regarding the consensual reality of this ship…)

Posted by jlg (# 98) on :

quote:
Originally posted by strathclydezero:
Blind faith is self-delusional, almost by definition. Christianity demands blind faith.

I agree that "blind" faith is probably self-delusional. I will also agree that Christianity can be construed in a way which demands this blind faith, but I won't agree that that is the only way one can approach Christianity.

quote:
Self-delusion isn't an insult - it can be argued it's one of the greatest virtues of humanity. People who are emotionally or morally weak couldn't recover from life traumas if they didn't have the possibility of self-delusion.

Maybe, maybe not. There is a growing body of study which is looking at survivors of trauma and trying to identify why some people come through it more or less intact and others show life-long negative effects. It is called the 'resiliency factor' in some studies. I can't claim to have read anything more than a couple of newspaper articles, so I'm not going to say more. Those who are interested might want to do some net-searching and read that various scholarly articles.

quote:
People convincing themselves that their marriage is OK, or that living with an illness is OK are self-delusional. It's part of our humanity which helps us to survive.

Answered above.

quote:
We define ourselves within our own boxes to make life that bit more bearable.

I have no idea what this means.

quote:
Belief in God makes life more bearable, I have never met a religions person who says it doesn't bring them some form of comfort.

May I suggest that this is because the comfort aspect is what makes them willing to profess a belief in God?
On the other hand, I find that my belief in God complicates my life and hasn't always provided comfort (and there are plenty of Purg and Hell threads to show that I am not alone in this).
And what about all those happy non-believers in the world? I've got a bunch of them in my immediate and extended family.

quote:
At the risk or repeating myself, I'm not taking delusion, or self-delusion, as negative things, but rather I'm interested in whether religion, and in particular Christian belief is compatible with realism,....

(bold emphasis changed by jlg)
This latter bit probably deserves a entire thread of its own.
Why and in what ways does Christianity (or any religion) have to be "compatible with "realism" (and what is your definition of same, scz?).

quote:
....and whether Christianity has anything to offer people who cannot find a way of getting all the answers from a book.

And this is a total non sequitur.

Is "...getting all the answers from a book" what you meant by "self-delusion"?

If not, are you truly totally oblivious to all the various ways in which Christianity can seduce the heathen?

Posted by Mousethiefovich (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by jlg:
Is "...getting all the answers from a book" what you meant by "self-delusion"?

If not, are you truly totally oblivious to all the various ways in which Christianity can seduce the heathen?

Is "getting all the answers form a book" what the OP'er means by "Christianity"? If so may I suggest a broadening of horizons about the range of meaning of that venerable and ancient word?

Posted by Archbishop Seraphim of Uglich (# 3251) on :

Hosting

Just making the obvious point, having read through this page, that there is a difference between debating delusion and the nature of self-delusion and actually saying that another poster is suffering from either. The latter is not acceptable, as it is a personal attack.

Duo Seraphim, Purgatory Host

Posted by strathclydezero (# 180) on :

I assume you're wanting a reply to the following Fr.G:

quote:
Originally posted by Pops Gregorios:

quote:
Choosing to belong to an established religion is quite different and removes the "working it out for yourself".
All of this is born out of a radical agnosticism which predicates delusion of anything excluded by its own definition. You try and make the illusion acceptable but the reality is that your aforementioned premise is false. It is false because it is a contention, not a proof. I can take it, therefore, as a personal position ... but it is still misconceived as a definitive statement for all that. However, if you present a personal position as the only dependable outlook on life your presentation has made itself watertight against any counter-proposal.

I can accept that what I have is my own personal position rather than a proof, but I guess what I'm really struggling with is the idea that anyone can make an absolute claim about anything. It may well be radical agnosticism, but where on earth does the idea that all people can and should subscribe to a common set of beliefs come from, be they anglo-catholic, fundamentalist evangelical, or any other?

Posted by Pops Gregorios (# 310) on :

Dear SCZ

Of course I could turn the tables on that question .... proving that it's not exactly a very helpful question since it's a "how could you?" type question.

quote:
but where on earth does the idea that all people can and should subscribe to a common set of beliefs come from, be they anglo-catholic, fundamentalist evangelical, or any other?

becomes ...

quote:
but where on earth does the idea that no one could or should subscribe to a common set of beliefs come from, be they anglo-catholic, fundamentalist evangelical, or any other?

[ 09. March 2004, 17:16: Message edited by: Pops Gregorios ]

Posted by Vikki Pollard (# 5548) on :

Martin - surely a best case God would answer all the, "Why doesn't God...?" questions.

So - why doesn't He? [Biased]

Posted by lapsed heathen (# 4403) on :

Scz;

quote:
but where on earth does the idea that all people can and should subscribe to a common set of beliefs come from, be they anglo-catholic, fundamentalist evangelical, or any other?

From the mistaken belife that truth can be reach by common consensus

Fr. G.;

quote:
but where on earth does the idea that no one could or should subscribe to a common set of beliefs come from, be they anglo-catholic, fundamentalist evangelical, or any other?

From the mistaken belife that truth cannot be reached by common consensus.

This whole debate is getting far to postmodern for my taste [Ultra confused]

Posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf (# 2252) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vikki Pollard:
Martin - surely a best case God would answer all the, "Why doesn't God...?" questions.

Why?

Posted by Pops Gregorios (# 310) on :

Radical agnosticism disinvents itself for such a non-position cannot help being questionned on its own terms.

Posted by Vikki Pollard (# 5548) on :

D-O-D
Because a best-case God would have to be a best EVERYBODY's case - and most people want God to provide all the answers...

Posted by Sea of Tranquility (# 4454) on :

Well, I've been off the boards for a couple of weeks, and having come back I was just about to retire in complete boredom when I came across this thread. Thanks, SCZ, for posting this, you've made my visit worthwhile.

On one level, faith is certainly self-delusional; in fact, all intelligent life is. Reality is really a lot of stuff whirling around according to scientific principles (not the ones we know, just whatever the real ones are), none of which makes any sense in the way we think of sense. So, to survive, as intelligent creatures, we have to make sense of it all. We define certain things as objects, decide where their boundaries are, what things are for, what things mean. There's no reason to believe that anything really means anything. But if you didn't rationalise reality into something your brain could cope with, you'd probably only live a day or two before dying of thirst.

So given that we have delude ourselves every moment in order to survive, is it any surprise that people believe in God as well as household furniture, the sun coming up tomorrow, etc? Yes - because most people have never really entertained the idea that the furniture isn't there - not even heard anyone suggest this. But we cannot go long in the western world without hearing people question the existence of God or other spiritual beliefs. The fact that there is a challenge makes it a special case.

Nevertheless, the same holds true as for furniture. Everyone comes to their conclusion about what their working belief about the world is going to be (though they generally do not do it consciously - but then most of what we sort out is not done consciously). You get bruises if you don't believe in furniture, so that one's easy (even if delusional). Believing that your mother / child / cat loves you is a stretch, but a lot of people believe this sort of thing, reckoning (subconsciously, generally) that it's a belief that seems to work for them. God etc is more of a stretch for most people, since relatively few people report the direct experience of God that they do of their mothers / children / cats. But even so, if the belief works for them (even if not always comfortably), then it makes sense to hold it.

All of this is quite different from the myth thing. With myths, you know it's a story, but you ascribe meaning to it. For instance, a lot of people know about urban myths, and how these doggie-in-the-microwave stories are not real. Yet we repeat them anyway, because they tell us something we think is worth internalising. Some people think that the stuff in the Bible has a large mythical component - others don't, but treat the stories just like myths anyway - repeating them in appropriate contexts to get across some sort of meaning. This is different from history, which is recounted in order to let you know what happened, but not to make a point (at least, not necessarily - and if it is, it may cross the border from history into story-telling / mythologising). It is true that some people get very worked up about the question of whether the Bible is true, because they feel myth lacks legitimacy as a carrier of meaning. But that seems to be fairly specific to our western culture. Personally, I blame the scientists. They should know better than anyone that all this conscious thinking we do is a continual process of self-delusion, but they forget this and keep insisting on the absolute truth of facts, as though these facts somehow carried meaning. They don't. We put lots of facts (and hypotheses and so on) together in a way we find meaningful - these ways are what we "know", but they are not fact in themselves, they are stories. If everyone really understood this, I think they would be a lot less worried about the factualness or otherwise of the Bible.

But then, some people do seem to feel that they need to know the Truth, so they can do the right things to get into God's good books. Given all the above, the insanity of this position (in terms of self-delusion) is pretty obvious. How can you possibly know? There are as many versions of Truth out there as people, and even if you accept some common basis (like the text of the Bible), everyone will interpret it differently. If there is a God, there's no way to know for sure how to get into his good books (unless you're one of the few lucky enough to have had a personal audience - but everyone who says they have seems to come out with a different belief, so this is no help to anyone else).

So where does this leave us? Yes, we delude ourselves when we have faith - and in a lot more ways than we can even begin to comprehend (i.e. the business of faith in God is just dipping your toe into it). It seems odd that people should have faith in God if you don't - untill you realise just how much belief is involved in everything we think, consciously or sub-consciously. When you do think about that - well, belief in God just seems to be another facet of it. It's not just a positive thing - it's absolutely to be expected.

In that case, why doesn't everyone believe in God? I suspect the answer is that it just isn't that helpful to everyone. A lot of people have told me that they believe in God because there must be some explanation for xxx (stars, creation, complexity, differs for each person), and they simply call that explanation God. Others tell me they feel there must be some foundation in which morality is grounded, and that foundation must be some sort of thing, and they call it God. No one has ever told me they believe in God because it's comforting - I suspect that's just an effect of belief, not a cause. Anyway, this still leaves a lot of space for people who don't believe either that there needs to be any explanation for xxx (as above) other than the mass of whirling subatomic stuff discussed earlier, and who also don't believe in the necessity of a universal morality. These are people who feel comfortable just not knowing. Lack of belief causes no metaphorical bumps on tables for them. These are the agnostics.

Of course, there are atheists, who, as everyone has observed, are just the flip side of believers - these are people who do feel a need to know - and who have concluded that their faith is in the non-existence of God. I have spoken with a few such people (true atheists seem a bit thin on the ground, in my experience - most on questioning turn out to be agnostic), and they do seem to experience those metaphorical bumps on tables when faced with the sort of question that induces faith - only they end up going the other direction.

Such, in any case, is the sense I have been able to make of this. It goes without saying that none of this is True - it is the story that I have told myself to make sense of what information my brain has constructed from the input of my senses.

Posted by Mousethiefovich (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vikki Pollard:
D-O-D
Because a best-case God would have to be a best EVERYBODY's case - and most people want God to provide all the answers...

Doesn't anybody want to be a grown-up anymore?

Posted by strathclydezero (# 180) on :

Sea of Tranquility [Overused]

Wish I'd posted that in the first place!

Posted by Glaz (# 3256) on :

By admitting you are self-deluded, Sea of Tranquility, you have opened us all up to accepting the truth of what you have said, and made us want to believe that what you say IS the case.

You shouldn't oughta have done that... [Biased]

Posted by Pops Gregorios (# 310) on :

OK so Sea of Tranquility and SCZ are perfectly agreed. What does that prove?

So many versions of the Truth. So many interpretations of the Bible? You see, the problem is that we Orthodox (and Catholics as well), say exactly the same thing .... and come to exactly the opposite conclusion.

There is a sure way of knowing and it isn't based on the usual post modernist, post Protestant agnosticism either. However, by definition, it isn't a model of knowing either of you are going to find attractive I fear. Protestantism (classic or otherwise) excludes it by its own self understanding. It is an inoperable condition.

[ 10. March 2004, 13:13: Message edited by: Pops Gregorios ]

Posted by lapsed heathen (# 4403) on :

Pops Gregorious;

quote:
There is a sure way of knowing and it isn't based on the usual post modernist, post Protestant agnosticism either. However, by definition, it isn't a model of knowing either of you are going to find attractive I fear.

And this way of knowing would be....? Dieing to find out, [Eek!]

Oh no! that wouldn't be it would it?

Posted by Pops Gregorios (# 310) on :

Yes, I'm afraid so! [Frown]

Oh well ....

Posted by Sea of Tranquility (# 4454) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Glaz:
By admitting you are self-deluded, Sea of Tranquility, you have opened us all up to accepting the truth of what you have said, and made us want to believe that what you say IS the case.

Well, what do you know, I have a potential convert. [Biased]

Of course, I have to defend the position by pointing out that if you think that this philosophy is sound, then you can't possibly argue that anything, much less this philosophy, IS the case. Or was that meant to be obvious? [Smile]

PG - by the way, you assume that when we die, we find out what's going on, or at least, whether there's a God. But some people believe in reincarnation of the spirit (as far as I know this does not involve any encounters with God), while of course many people believe there is a God, but that there may be no afterlife.

Oddly enough, I've never known anyone to choose any of these beliefs - those who believe always seem to feel that either the truth of their position is self-evident to the open-minded person, or that it is embedded in them in such a way that they could not believe otherwise. I therefore find it amusing when people ask me questions such as "Have you accepted Christ as your personal saviour?" They seem not to be arguing for self-evident truth, but for choice, as though one to whom this had not already been self-evident could choose the way of righteousness.

Posted by Pops Gregorios (# 310) on :

Dear Sea of Tranquility

quote:
Oddly enough, I've never known anyone to choose any of these beliefs

I did and do. I have no time for that ridiculous phrase in the American Constitution ... "self evident" truths. Much of your argumentation (and that of SCZ) seems to fall under that heading. I don't simply disbelieve in reincarnation because it is not part of the "Christianity package." I disbelieve it because it is incoherent, false according to the alleged evidence and injurious to the notion of the human person. I couldn't care less how popular it is. So is astrology. [Projectile]

Posted by humblebumski (# 4358) on :

Fr G

I think you're going to fill us in on what your Orthodox approach is here - lapsed heathen was right, we are dying to know. Sea of Tranquility thinks it's finding out after you die, but I'm guessing that he's wrong.

And I'm guessing that I'm going to agree with you (even though I'm a little confused as to why, as a fairly middle of the road protestant, you think I won't!)

Posted by Glaz (# 3256) on :

No one on this thread has "sounded right" so far. That speaks volumes.

Posted by Henry Troup (# 3722) on :

I presume that by "realism", SCZ doesn't mean formal "Platonic realism"?

(Aside - a lot of this is metadiscussion, so apologies for the density of quotation marks. Remember that when I write

quote:
"coffee cup" has nine letters

quote:
"coffee cup" includes both china and styrofoam

I mean something about the word or concept, not the actual physical cup in my hand. However,

quote:
coffee cup is empty

means this instance here -- and it is.)

Platonic realism is the claim that the Platonic "ideals" have an independent existence. The Rant has an interesting essay on this. I've been known to respond to people who claim to be "realists" with an off-hand "that's too airy-fairy for me."

Realism, in the Platonic sense (PR), is intimately connected to "faith". The sense of the word "faith" that, to me, connects to PR is the claim of the independence of the existence of the "ideal". If "freedom" is a real thing, then that's a kind of faith, which is pretty close to the faith that "Jesus" is real.

[[Fortran joke" God is REAL - unless declared INTEGER]]

One of the many conceptual theologies one could put forth is that "God" is responsible for maintaining the existence of the "real" "ideals". This is pretty close to Bishop Berkeley's famous meditation.

Another would simple put "God" into the class of "ideals".

So, in that sense, Christianity is very compatible with realism.

But, I think SCZ means the common sense of "realism", which is "Nominalism". Nominalism claims that the abstract qualities are only names which we give to things.

While both are old positions - the debate goes back to Plato and Aristole and the Cynics, after all, Nominalism has popped right back up as "post-modernism".

So, time to out myself - I'm pretty much a Nominalist, "early-post-modern", "General Semantics", "Alfred Korzybski" kind of guy.

I'm also a fairly evangelical, somewhat charismatic Christian, with dashes of Buddhism. And, no, I'm not sure that there's no self-delusion involved.

Nearly all Christian theology was born out of the confluence of Christian belief and Greek philosophy. After all these years, the big questions remain much as they were at the beginning.

The map is not the territory and "The Bible" is not my religion.

Posted by Janine, the UnOrthodoxie (# 3337) on :

I'd say religion-- real religion, God's religion--

quote:
James 1:26,27:
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man's religion is worthless.
Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.

That sort of religion is the only safe place where you can take off the blindfold.

Posted by Pops Gregorios (# 310) on :

I distrust "sounds" Glaz. Too much personal subjectivity. It smacks too much of SCZ's "how could you? who could believe that?" approach. If delusion is in religion it is everywhere. If realism is in life ... it is in religion as well. We mustn't assume our conclusion in our premise.

And no folks. I am not going to tell you how we can know for sure. You know that already. It's time to stop arguing about it and do something with what we KNOW instead.

Hey! You could be wrong. We all could. But, what are you going to lead your life by ... nervousness at the quicksands or a tried, sure and tested path. Was Gollum reliable? You have your answer. Take pity on him. Frodo did.

Posted by Ophthalmos (# 3256) on :

Dear Gregorios

So you placate us for thinking we're self-deluded then bring the Lord of the Rings into it?! [Biased]

I take your point about knowing though - we have to take things at face value.

However, I do rather like personal subjectivity. I feel much more confident in believing something completely different than the next person along because it is something that I believe.

And before you say anything about that being incredibly self-centred, I would never say there was anything wrong with communitarian ideologies. I just don't like ones that allow the individual no free choice between options, as I feel the churches often do.

It's also not clear to me what the "sure, tried and tested path" actually is.

Posted by Pops Gregorios (# 310) on :

quote:
It's also not clear to me what the "sure, tried and tested path" actually is.

It's something we must all discover for ourselves .... which doesn't mean that we wield the machete through the jungle ourselves to get through. The path is already there. We just have to look for it.

PS ... if choosing is construed against constraint ... it is not really choosing at all. It's reacting.

[ 11. March 2004, 22:47: Message edited by: Pops Gregorios ]

Posted by Christian Allen (# 5539) on :

I'm curious if anyone agrees that we can have internal feelings, beliefs and convictions that are not necessarily reflected in our actions? Can we partisipate in a religious ritual or join a church while internally we are questioning and struggling with self delusion?

I have gone to many jobs as a means to an end while internally questioning the basis for my position or tasks. I still went to work everyday. Is religion a means to an end, while internal, personal beliefs may or may not be delusions?

quote:
However, I do rather like personal subjectivity. I feel much more confident in believing something completely different than the next person along because it is something that I believe.

I think many people feel this way. Does it preclude involvement in church or religion? The original question on the thread has to do with what is required for religion... Is religious practice always assumed to be the result of deeply held "truths"? What if you start partisipating in religion deluded and end up connected to some objective truth? Is that possible?

Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :

Heh, if I waited for the guy in the next pew and the gal behind me and the ones in pulpit and office and sound booth to all share all my beliefs... whether they're beliefs based in ascertainable facts or in delusion, take your pick... I'd have to wait until the Lord comes back.

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :

My problem with this debate is that it is still contextualised by personal subjectivity. Am I deluded or not? Are my religious sentiments reliable? Can I end up doing the right thing for the wrong reasons? etc. Orthodoxy does not discount the importance of such self doubting but it does not construct its epistemology on such shaky foundations. Truth and fantasy are cleaved in two by more objective external criteria .... which then have to be internalised and checked out against our inner motions.

Posted by Callan. (# 525) on :

I think, assuming I'm not misunderstanding him, that I'm with Fr. Gregory on this one. How can we know anything? Because we can validate our beliefs against reality. Because others have gone before us and carried out the same exercise and therefore we can validate our beliefs and their beliefs against reality. We can live within a tradition and reason critically within it.

Of course, there is the possibility that one day the weight of rationality might cause the tradition to topple, but in a perverse way that possibility means that the tradition bears some relationship to reality and is not merely an arbitrary construct. The chance that a really delusional world view is going to be corrected by reality is pretty close to zero.

I think the problem with the position taken by Glaz, SCZ and Sea of Tranquility is that it is too solipsitic. There is only "my belief". But believing and reasoning are not asocial ahistorical practices. They relate to reality and the beliefs and reasoning of those who have gone before us. I'd add that I think that scepticism is over rated. There's an important philosophical sense in which we don't know that the sun will rise tomorrow but we know, in practice, that we can still make arrangements as if we could. Even if all beliefs are provisional, some of them are a sight less provisional than others.

Posted by lapsed heathen (# 4403) on :

Callan;

quote:
Even if all beliefs are provisional, some of them are a sight less provisional than others.

And is religious belief one of them? .

Posted by ChristinaMarie (# 1013) on :

I prefer the word 'illusion' to 'delusion' as delusion has very strong negative connotations.

Illusions of reality can serve a positive purpose. Take for example someone who has trouble with being late. One way to correct this, is to set up an illusion. One can set one's watch or clock 15 minutes ahead of time, so that the deadline is artificially put forward. When at College, I always made my own deadline for an essay, one week before the actual deadline. As a result, I had my drafts completed a week before the actaul deadline.

Of course, if the person who has put his/her watch 15 mins ahead, gets into arguments about what time it is, they've become deluded. If I'd stayed up all night completing the final version of an essay, to meet my own 'one week before deadline', I'd have fallen for my own illusion.

The problem I see with seeing our beliefs as agreeing with reality is this: our beliefs can alter our PERCEPTION of reality.

Suppose you encounter someone you want to help who has trouble because he/she hears voices that condemn them and make their life very difficult.

What is the reality of the voices?

1. A materialist belief would think of the voices as pathological. Something is wrong with the person's brain.

2. A Christian should also consider the materialist intepretation, but may also be open to the possibility that some kind of demonic activity is producing the voices.

3. Someone else may include the possibility that the voices are voices of dead people.

Until 6 months ago I held to position 2. It was backed up by experience because I laid hands on and prayed for 2 people who heard these kind of voices, and the voices went temporarily. My perception of what had happened backed up my belief.

However, a little over 6 months ago, I spoke with 'dead people' who were manifesting themselves in a person. At first thought along the lines of alters produced by stress, ie a materialist view, but after getting their names, years of death, and other details, there was too much evidence that I really was encountering the spirits of dead people. I've now found a therapy on the Internet that acknowledges this phenomenom, and is called Spirit Release Therapy.

I've changed my Christian beliefs about what happens at death. I now believe that a person can remain earthbound, or have a different experience than either heaven or hell.

The point is, if stuck to certain Christian beliefs dogmatically, I wouldn't be able to consider what I am considering now.

As for the 'tried and tested road', well I'm afraid there is FAR more evidence of life after death that goes against the Christian pre-taste of heaven or hell belief out there.

Love
Christina

Posted by Callan. (# 525) on :

Originally posted by Lapsed Heathen:

quote:
Callan;

quote:
Even if all beliefs are provisional, some of them are a sight less provisional than others.
And is religious belief one of them?

I don't think that religious belief is any more or less inherently improbable than irrelgious belief, as it were. Theism is as metaphysical as atheism.

Posted by hermit (# 1803) on :

quote:
At the risk or repeating myself, I'm not taking delusion, or self-delusion, as negative things, but rather I'm interested in whether religion, and in particular Christian belief is compatible with realism, and whether Christianity has anything to offer people who cannot find a way of getting all the answers from a book.

Forgive me for not addressing the previous excellent posts as usual, but after all I AM a hermit.

When deciding for myself whether there was a God or not, I became quite emotionally worked up over the matter and BEGGED God for a sign, one which had been given to my father years before. It was given me, and some specific prayers also answered then and in the coming years.

Sometimes I tell skeptics to try the same thing, but as I say or write that I know inwardly in a flash that it won't work for them .... because they're not willing to humble themselves, realize their own insignificance, and beg an answer from God. And then wait patiently. They might go so far as to demand a sign from God, but not to beg one.

Now why would God need such humility and worship and longsuffering patience from us, skeptics often laugh, is He insecure? Why not just answer us on demand? I don't really know but I suspect it has to do with learning an important lesson before we can continue with our schooling.

quote:
Belief in God makes life more bearable, I have never met a religions person who says it doesn't bring them some form of comfort.

But why doesn't a belief in Neptune or Alexander the Great offer some similar innate comfort?

Posted by Sea of Tranquility (# 4454) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Callan.:
I think the problem with the position taken by Glaz, SCZ and Sea of Tranquility is that it is too solipsitic. There is only "my belief".

On one level, this observation is correct (for me - I do not speak for Glaz and SCZ). I follow the initial hypothesis of Descartes - "I think therefore I am" - but I disagree with his supposed proof of the existence of everything else based on that premise; his logic unfortunately does not hold water (if it did, then all philosophers would believe in God).

However, as I pointed out earlier, no one actually goes around believing only in themselves, because this leads to suffering and rapid death. We construct reality - we have to. Our brains are designed to do this.

This is one point on which I do agree (I think) with FrG - we all follow our own road. We construct our own realities.

quote:
But believing and reasoning are not asocial ahistorical practices. They relate to reality and the beliefs and reasoning of those who have gone before us.

We (most of us anyway), choose to believe in the existence of the social world and history (at least, the part of it we've chosen to believe in - I know of one Christian who believes that the world is roughly 4000 years old, and whose remark on the question of archaological evidence was "isn't it wonderful that God made the world out of old rocks?").

There has been reasoning in every direction - towards atheism, agnosticism, and theism of probably uncountable varieties. So yes, of course we take advantage of the thinking of those who went before, and of such evidence as we choose to accept. And in doing so WE ARE CONSTRUCTING REALITY. Sorry to belabour the point - but that is exactly what is happening. You say you disagree with this philosopher, but buy the next one's argument. You agree with certain evidence of texts but disagree with others. You accept certain archaological findings but disagree with others (why not? archaeologists do). And in picking and choosing what to believe and what to discard, you create your own way of looking at the world.

Incidentally, thanks, Christina, for your contribution. I've heard many stories relating to the spirit world from highly reliable sources who have no axe to grind, stories that are difficult to explain away.

I think "skepticism" gets an unnecessarily bad press, probably because it is associated with being pig-headed. I think the opposite is true - a skeptic is entirely open-minded. When presented with a point of view and some evidence (whether it be "I have personally seen Jesus", or "I have communicated with my dead Grandmother"), the skeptic says "yes, that's very interesting, and I'd like to know more". A skeptic never really believes unless all the evidence goes in one direction. For precisely this reason they are always open to hearing more - evidence to disprove things they've believed up to now, or evidence to explain apparently opposed evidence of the past, showing how in fact they can be explained by a single theory. As skeptic is really just a curious person who does not feel the need to select a "right" answer from two opposed views that appear to be backed by evidence.

Really, I think the majority of us on this thread are saying essentially the same thing. It's just that most of us are not skeptics, and have therefore presented decided views on things. But it all seems to be part of the same story - which is that yes, belief does seems to involve self-delusion of a sort, but that is a) essentially true by definition, and therefore not very remarkable (because by definition everything we know is a construct), and b) undoubtedly a good thing (because we cannot live without constructing reality).

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :

Light relief time ...

Oh dear .... Cartesian mentalism again! Time for some philosophy jokes. (The old one are the best!)

Voltaire: To do is to be.
Jean Paul Sartre: To be is to do.
Frank Sinatra: Ooooh, de-dooby do!

Descartes: "I think, therefore I am."
Drunk: "I drink, therefore I am."
Buddhist: "I think .... "

Posted by Timothy (still Obscure) (# 292) on :

Descartes is stting in a bar, finishing his drink. The bartender comes over, says, "Yo, Rene, ready for another round?"

Descartes says, "No--I think not..." and disappears.

Timothy

Posted by Emma. (# 3571) on :

[Killing me]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0