How does one distinguish a 'belief' from a delusion?

[DogmaHunter]

so, your argument, that presumably you think is wise, is that if you are talking to person X and they disagree with person Y you can assert they agree with person Y so that you have an argument to present and they aren't suppose to be offended that you refuse to listen to what X says nor respond to person X cause you think that everyone is ticky tacky....wow, I'm not sure if I should report this post for flaming or just pretend that you are smart enough to know that people in general will not tolerate your twisting what they say because someone else argued it once with you.

I'm not giving you an argument. I'm sharing an observation.

 

[devolved]

In fact, I had this discussion a while back with someone and the science says that these things come from a variety of sources, including but not limited to external stimuli (I presented the evidence at the time, not going to put forth the effort here so you can ignore it)

Secondly, hapiness, joy and patience are not things . There are concepts that define a certain state of human being in their own perception of their experience.

Our experience is brain-driven, thus these concepts encapsulate a state of mind, which resides in the brain.

Thus, these things don't "come from" anywhere. THESE ARE OUR REACTIONS TO EVENTS. When you say "Joy", joy is a brain-reaction. When you say patience ... patience is a stereotypical reaction to certain circumstances. These are not somehow external to our brain function.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

If every claim Joe makes is true, then it is a pretty good bet that Joe exists.

Nope. I could write a completely accurate history book and attribute it to a fictional person. And if I throw in some unverifiable miracles, I could attribute the book to a fictitious god.

 

[Goatee]

Most religious folk seem content to reveal that the basis of their faith is an extremely personal, internal process. They agree that there is no tangible evidence that they can produce for their beliefs and that most of it resides in dreams, visions, feelings, etc, that they claim to have experienced.

Given that this is the case and observing that different religious groups will report wildly different beliefs, it becomes reasonable to conclude that they cannot all be accurate portrayals of reality.......some, or all, must be incorrect.

Hence my question.......how does an individual know that their belief is not a delusion concocted in their own mind?

Faith! Faith in God!

A massively strong feeling of Love for God. Its hard to explain but it is overwhelming. It is intense. Your whole being knows that God is real. Its an amazing feeling!

One knows that God is everything to that person. For me, i would give my life for God in an instant. God for me is 'life'. He is my breath, He is my heart beat.

It is hard for a non believer to understand. I hope that one day, those that dont believe will. That they will see God and know him for without God we are nothing.

 

[toLiJC]

Most religious folk seem content to reveal that the basis of their faith is an extremely personal, internal process. They agree that there is no tangible evidence that they can produce for their beliefs and that most of it resides in dreams, visions, feelings, etc, that they claim to have experienced.

Given that this is the case and observing that different religious groups will report wildly different beliefs, it becomes reasonable to conclude that they cannot all be accurate portrayals of reality.......some, or all, must be incorrect.

Hence my question.......how does an individual know that their belief is not a delusion concocted in their own mind?

Just to add further........for the purposes of this discussion, I am using 'delusion' to mean a belief in something which is untrue, caused by a disconnection with reality. I am not relating it to any form of mental illness. I use it in much the same way that we might observe that most of humanity was 'deluded' when they believed that the sun orbited the earth.

when it comes to practicing faith, only the persuasion that is in accordance with the overall salvation in God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, is not a misbelief, i.e. if any persuasion supports non-salvation, it is surely a misbelief, excluding the doctrine of eternal judgment, which explains the circle of life and existence

Blessings

 

[devolved]

Faith! Faith in God!

A massively strong feeling of Love for God. Its hard to explain but it is overwhelming. It is intense. Your whole being knows that God is real. Its an amazing feeling!

One knows that God is everything to that person. For me, i would give my life for God in an instant. God for me is 'life'. He is my breath, He is my heart beat.

It is hard for a non believer to understand. I hope that one day, those that dont believe will. That they will see God and know him for without God we are nothing.

The problem is that many believers would actually disagree with you. They'd say that faith is not a feeling and is a purely intellectual endeavor. Many people don't feel any different after they belief than before.

http://www.relevantmagazine.com/god/practical-faith/dont-let-emotions-dictate-your-faith


What would you say then?

 

[jeanetteflint]

I would totally expect them to say the same thing about their books and I would absolutely agree. The problem isn't with the claim but with the inconsistency of many that accept let's say...the Quaran as the authority on Allah but refuse to accept the Bible as the authority on God.

What evidence...scripture tells us that the evidence that God has given us as to our salvation is the HS. The evidence of that HS is a changed life. It is a desire and goal of righteousness, it is Love, Joy, Peace, etc. Galatians 5, the fruit of the Spirit for those that might want the full list. When these things are present and in the form that the Bible tells us is consistent with the HS, we have tangible evidence of our salvation. It may not be measurable as in X number of inches or Y ounces, but it is measurable in light of who we were before and who society is at large. Without that evidence, we simply can't be sure if it is your religious belief or your salvation.

How do you know that you are believing in accordance with reality, while they are obviously incorrect? Test. The Bible tells us to test the spirits, to test things, not just accept them because it is what you were taught. I have been a believer for almost 50 years now. Over that 50 years I have taken very serious the admonition of the Bible to test and interesting enough, I have yet to find one claim that is actually made in the bible to be false. Some haven't yet happened, some we can't be sure, but of all those left, I haven't come across one false one yet. But this also goes back to the claim that the Bible is the authoritative word of God. You see, this is where many people get all crazy. They listen to teachers of God tell them what the Bible says and never look at it themselves. Just had a discussion about this yesterday over the topic of overcoming. The Bible tells us that in Christ we are more than overcomers (one way to measure) yet when I brought that up to a "christian" that is one who claims belief but lives like an unbeliever, they were upset to even think that anyone (refused to even acknowledge scripture says it) would suggest not allowing our abuse to define us was a good thing much less do able. Yet I know of people who live above their abuse and I am one of those people. Evidence of the Living God of the Bible. Take all that evidence and add it together and you have a very strong case for knowing truth from delusion. that would be why we should test them to see.Because other people see it too...when I first came to Christ, I prayed that if there was truth to be had, people would notice a difference without me even saying anything. Low and behold, without me saying a single word, people started noticing a difference. This is one of many measurable ways to know truth from delusion when it comes to what one believes.

 

[jeanetteflint]

All this means is that you have changed and that it is noticeable to others. It doesn't mean the change came from God. As a non-believer, I can do this as well. I can decide, just as an example, that I will be more cognizant of really listening to others, rather than being prepared to express my own thoughts. This is a good thing to do, and if one practiced it, it would definitely be noticed by others.

 

[jeanetteflint]

someone truly determined to know truth would never use these arguments you present here. In addition to that, the Bible talks about both directly. According to scripture, there is only one God therefore only one interpretation. that is why the one who is determined to know truth does not rely on interpretation but one a careful study of the word and the consistency of what it says. Other layers can be added if available. For example, I personally do a lot of study of the Bible. I have no less than 7 layers of protection to make sure that what I uncover is the 1 interpretation that God intends. Now before someone gets crazy on me, I am NOT saying I am always right, I am saying however that I apply at least 7 practices of good study to make sure I don't get it wrong. What I find happening is I will talk to people who disagree, and in the end they always end up saying something like, "well, that is what it says but..." Interpretation isn't as fluid as we try to make it so that we can justify our own sins. again, not a Biblical answer and the Bible is suppose to be the authority on God, remember? The Biblical answer is that God has told us who He is and what we need to know in order to know and follow Him. IOW's we know why He does what He does, we know what He does, etc. We may not understand all of it, but that doesn't mean we don't know.

Take creation for example. According to Gen. which btw is a polemic not a scientific treatise, God spoke and it was...what that tells us is that the mechanism for creation was God's word, but the process by which that word became the creation is still a mystery from the standpoint of Gen. So, God does have some mystery to Him, but we also know what He wants and how He intends to bring it about, that isn't a mystery at all. In fact, even Isaiah 53 tells us that He revealed the mystery as do dozens of other passages.

 

[jeanetteflint]

IOW's we know why He does what He does, we know what He does, etc. We may not understand all of it, but that doesn't mean we don't know.

Exactly what does the above mean? Knowing and understanding is 2 different things. Understanding is as important as knowing.

 

[razzelflabben]

The entirety of it.

so, you can't be specific, okay, let's give you the benefit of the doubt and break it down.

Do you think that the Bible making a claim that X will happen if Y is present is magic? Cause I know a lot of people and texts that make claims and I have yet to see someone claim that making a claim is magic somehow

Okay, next part of the equation...do you think that there is something that is magical about offering measurable things as evidence that X will happen if Y is involved? Cause last time I checked, the majority of people do not think that there is something magical about offering a measurable outcome in a theory or hypothesis.

The only thing left that you could think sounded magical is that if we have a claim and a measurable outcome we can test to see if the source of the claim is the actual source of the claim. Is that the part that you think sounds like magic, that we can test for something if we are given something we can measure to test for?

That was the three things I offered that you are arguing sounds magical...so specifically what part is sounding magical to you...I beginning to wonder how far the delusional thoughts on this thread are becoming when the scientific method sounds "magical" to you.

 

[razzelflabben]

What indicates that there is a God making any claims about himself through this or that holy book? It seems that there are human beings making such claims about a God. So are you really testing "the claims that God makes about himself"?

as per the book or books that claim to be the authority on that deity, we talked about that ages ago, where were you?

 

[razzelflabben]

Are you comparing Joe to God? You haven't made it clear in your analogy. I think I could respond better if you make things more clear.

I just brought our 17 year old home, as we were coming home he asked what was going on in the forums, I told him about this discussion and that I used the analogy of Joe and the light. He didn't even hesitate to know who Joe represented and laughed at you trying to change it to suit your agenda. Then he told me to not even bother because that is just how atheists try to argue anything about God...BTW, he is an agnostic and has little to no respect for atheists because of this type of non sense. Now in direct answer...yes, in the analogy, Joe is God, the one making the claim. [/quote]

We don't need to test that Joe exists because you actually insert the Joe into experiment and name him. I guess you could name an automatic ligh-switch Joe. How would you know a difference then? You can't just presume the causes because you ascribe some effects to these causes. The whole analogy is very confusing for this reason.[/quote] we aren't testing to see if Joe exists, geesh that is at least the second time I have told you...we are testing to see if the claim Joe makes is true. Your twisting the analogy so hard and fast I am starting to get dizzy.

Secondly, we know that people exist, therefore the claim that there's a person named Joe who is flipping the switch isn't in the same realm of plausibility of what you are talking about.

now, I'm dizzy enough I'm confused...who is trying to figure out if the one making the claim exists? We are testing the claim being made, not the one making the claim...if then every single claim tests out to be true, that being nothing falsified, then, we can be confident the one making the claim exists, if even one thing is falsified, we have no assurance. It's really that simple. Not sure why you are so determined to throw out scientific method, but okay....just don't drag me down that delusion that scientific method is meaningless.

That's the core fallacy of this issue. You inject a presupposition, and you don't see a need to validate it, and then you falsely correlate your presupposed causes with your observed effects.

lol all this because you are twisting what I said into something I didn't and claiming I don't know what I am talking about....lol...no wonder my son doesn't respect atheists too much.

 

[razzelflabben]

That these things are mental is a scientific fact . We actually know that it's a fact, because we can emulate these mental states by injecting various drugs and hormones. In fact it's already widely done.

you need to look at the research again, but that is all off topic so either do your homework or don't just stop asking me to defend things I didn't say.

ADHD is a lack of "patience" of focus. OCD can be a lack of patience or focus. All of these things can be treated via training, education, and in some extreme cases by adjusting the brain chemistry. Some people sink into depression, and guidance can help them to re-focus on positive things and feel more joy.

except we aren't talking about ADHD or OCD...we are talking about the source of joy and you don't even know what joy we are talking about yet because you aren't addressing what I am saying.

The entire field of psychology exists because we can treat certain psychological states by providing guidance and training.

Likewise, there are plentiful experiments done that clearly demonstrate that people can be induced to feel more happy or sad or patient or anxious by simply stimulating certain areas of the brain.

How much scientific evidence do you need?

enough to defend the claim you previously made that you now change your position on in order to make some point that you can't really make.

Secondly, these are mental states because that's what we define them as to begin with. These are brain-driven activities. You'd have to demonstrate that these are not, because everything we know about these concepts points to two things:

1) Endocrine system
2) Human nervous system

I don't have to do any such thing. You made the claim that the source of all joy is the mental aspect of man. I challenged that and you disagree with me by showing other things than the mental nature of man as a source for joy....see how easy it is to defeat someone who refuses to address what is actually being said!

 

[Goatee]

The problem is that many believers would actually disagree with you. They'd say that faith is not a feeling and is a purely intellectual endeavor. Many people don't feel any different after they belief than before.

http://www.relevantmagazine.com/god/practical-faith/dont-let-emotions-dictate-your-faith


What would you say then?

I only know how i feel and what others have told me. I cannot speak for everyone!

 

[razzelflabben]

There are no guarantees of reliability with the scientific method, but it's the best we have. Without a link or quote of the post you're referring to, I can't really comment further.

yep...what am I suppose to link you to, that the scientific method is the most reliable way to determine if something is delusion or not....you just said we agree on that, why would you need a link to evidence it if we agree. Wouldn't that mean you already have seen enough evidence to agree with me in the first place?

 

[razzelflabben]

IOW's we know why He does what He does, we know what He does, etc. We may not understand all of it, but that doesn't mean we don't know.

Exactly what does the above mean? Knowing and understanding is 2 different things. Understanding is as important as knowing.

as important maybe, but not the same thing at all, shall I get the dictionary out for you or do you think you can open the tab yourself?

 

[razzelflabben]

I'm not giving you an argument. I'm sharing an observation.

but you are suppose to according to forum rules address the post not what other people claim at least when you quote my post and act like you are responding to it.

 

[devolved]

we are testing to see if the claim Joe makes is true. Your twisting the analogy so hard and fast I am starting to get dizzy.

Your analogy doesn't make sense in respect to what you are trying to demonstrate and that's the whole point.

The whole concept is predicated on the assumption that God exists. If God doesn't exist, then your claims about what God does are largely irrelevant.

You are telling me that we don't need to test whether God exists or not, but merely test the claims... but the claim is that the God is the cause of the things that you are observing. I'm not sure how either you, or your 17 YO can see this baggage of presupposition that you are smuggling in with this assumption.

You can't claim that the results are an effect of the HS until you demonstrate the HS is a real thing. But you can't demonstrate it. All you point to is to some attributes like "measured increase of patience", or "Joy in all circumstances of life, even when these are sad"... etc.

But you are not demonstrating how your you are linking any of this to HS and God, when it's seemingly a result of following through certain expectations.

For example, in Russian cultures the couples have less difficult of a time of getting through infidelity than in US cultures. Why? Because in certain instances it's a cultural expectations. They looks at it as "eh, men be men", and then scold them, but they don't go on grieving and divorcing like you would see in US cultures.

Cultural expectations of behavior end up shaping the behavior... including the "Joy in the middle of sorrow". When sad events happen, Christians follow the "well, I should be happy" routine, and that's the alternative explanation that you ignore

 

[Goatee]

For those of us that have true faith and belief in God, we don't need any 'tests'.