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

[blackribbon]

so, are you suggesting there is no way to know the difference? Not even testing?

Our dog just died, how do we know that he died? Or are we destined to just believe he is dead and nothing more? Admittedly, not all beliefs are easy to test, but I'm not sure I can go along with the notion that there is no way to know if that is what you are suggesting.

What is death? Does it mean your dog no longer exists or he/she no longer exists as a living being in this world? And how do you know that the dog really is dead beyond his body is dead?

Often there is no way to know the difference between a delusion and a truth based belief. That is the simple answer.

 

[razzelflabben]

Sorry to read about your dog.

You were there to see the dog die? That's not belief. That's a witnessed fact.

actually, we were not there to see the dog die. We did see him after the fact. But again, how would we know that he died except that there was evidence? Depending on the belief depends on how much evidence there is, but shouldn't we base as many beliefs as we can on evidence, including but not limited to religious beliefs?

 

[razzelflabben]

What is death? Does it mean your dog no longer exists or he/she no longer exists as a living being in this world? And how do you know that the dog really is dead beyond his body is dead?

Often there is no way to know the difference between a delusion and a truth based belief. That is the simple answer.

I both agree and disagree with your conclusion here. where I agree that many beliefs have little to no evidence and that many beliefs require us to define some things, I also believe that the best way to know the difference between truth and delusion is to test.

Take the dog for example, using the clinical definition for death, we observed that the dog was not moving, did not come when called, could not be roused, was not breathing, had no heart beat, etc. All things that could be tested and that would lead us to the conclusion that the dog was by clinical definition, dead...as sad as that is. Not all of our beliefs are that easy to test, but why should we refuse to try to test that which we can?

Had a long talk with our agnostic son this weekend about the what ifs...of belief. Carried that discussion into today with my husband and the dog situation. One of the things we talked about is why someone would ignore, refuse, or not care about what evidence there might be. The only reason we could come up with had to do with emotional pride so to speak. IOW's take religion for example, if in my emotional pride of wanting to be right, I refuse evidence and/or testing of my beliefs, then I am protecting my emotional pride of being right, for in that refusal of evidence and/or testing, I refuse to allow anyone to challenge my ideas or beliefs. This emotional pride is a wall of protection around the personal belief that I want to hold as truth no matter the cost and opens the door for delusions.

I suspect this is at least one reason that scripture tells us to test all things, so that the emotional pride that is so dangerous to truth is demolished and we discover truth, real truth, truth that cannot be shaken. We see a similar theme in scripture where we are told to be ready to give a reason for what we believe and where we ware told to seek God above all else, presuming of course that God is truth as per scripture.

So, I would summarize all of this by asking of your position, why would we not want to test our beliefs? Why would we simply want to be content to believe what we believe to be truth and in doing so open ourselves to delusions?

 

[blackribbon]

However, sometimes the tests we use are flawed. My son is now fighting a medical issue that seems to disconnect his consciousness from his body. I watched the neurologist do a coma test that involves causing a patient an intense amount of pain on him ... the purpose is to see if the body reacts (pain is an unconscious response and how the body reacts to it shows at what level the brain is functioning). He showed zero response physically but when he came out of the "episode" he was mad because he said it "hurt like hell" and there was nothing he could do to make it stop. Inside he was screaming but outwardly (and I was watching) he had zero response. He is an EMT and he said he will NEVER treat someone who is non-responsive the same way again. He is always going to assume consciousness. In this case, all "evidence" went against what he was able to later identify as truth. Without this experience, he believed what they taught him...now he knows his truth was flawed. With your dog, and your inability to experience the other side of physical death, you do not know anything beyond "his body died". The Bible talks about death of body and a forever death of the soul...which is true death? God put us out of Eden to prevent us from living forever...so to allow us a physical death...but Jesus died so that we don't have to experience spiritual/soul death. Is your dog dead as in no longer exists on any plane...or is his body simply dead? Since the Bible does not address what happens to animals when they die, we simply do not know and any evidence we use to prove either side is just opinion and has nothing to do with truth.

 

[Blondepudding]

actually, we were not there to see the dog die. We did see him after the fact. But again, how would we know that he died except that there was evidence? Depending on the belief depends on how much evidence there is, but shouldn't we base as many beliefs as we can on evidence, including but not limited to religious beliefs?

OK, let us proceed from the witness standpoint then.
You witness a written bible that came into being before you were born. You didn't witness what is written inside. You read what is written inside and take it at its word that it was written by men inspired by a spirit.
Did you witness the spirit? Or did you witness the evidence of printed words admittedly written by men who said they came from a spirit?

 

[razzelflabben]

However, sometimes the tests we use are flawed. My son is now fighting a medical issue that seems to disconnect his consciousness from his body. I watched the neurologist do a coma test that involves causing a patient an intense amount of pain on him ... the purpose is to see if the body reacts (pain is an unconscious response and how the body reacts to it shows at what level the brain is functioning). He showed zero response physically but when he came out of the "episode" he was mad because he said it "hurt like hell" and there was nothing he could do to make it stop. Inside he was screaming but outwardly (and I was watching) he had zero response. He is an EMT and he said he will NEVER treat someone who is non-responsive the same way again. He is always going to assume consciousness. In this case, all "evidence" went against what he was able to later identify as truth. Without this experience, he believed what they taught him...now he knows his truth was flawed. With your dog, and your inability to experience the other side of physical death, you do not know anything beyond "his body died". The Bible talks about death of body and a forever death of the soul...which is true death? God put us out of Eden to prevent us from living forever...so to allow us a physical death...but Jesus died so that we don't have to experience spiritual/soul death. Is your dog dead as in no longer exists on any plane...or is his body simply dead? Since the Bible does not address what happens to animals when they die, we simply do not know and any evidence we use to prove either side is just opinion and has nothing to do with truth.

Remember, I said I agree and disagree both. In fact, I talked about some of the limitations and you added another here. BTW, I am really sorry about your son, our son too is having some very serious issues and it is harder than most people realize. But back to topic. One limitation could be faulty tests, but does that mean we shouldn't test? Why would scripture tell us to test if tests even faulty ones don't tell us something important. In the case of your son, that what we observe isn't all there is to truth. But this also goes to the issue of death. In the discussion we were using the classic or clinical definition of death, not the spiritual one. So where I agree wholeheartedly with this conclusion, I also see no reason in the conclusion to not test our beliefs just because there might be flawed tests or inaccurate definitions. In fact, I would suggest that both of these are reasons to challenge our beliefs not reasons to refuse to challenge them.

 

[blackribbon]

So, I would summarize all of this by asking of your position, why would we not want to test our beliefs? Why would we simply want to be content to believe what we believe to be truth and in doing so open ourselves to delusions?

I say we always test our beliefs but we have to also recognize that we never really know the truth...we only believe we know. I believe that truth will come at death .... but again, that is also a statement that cannot be proven so it is a faith statement. If we just cease to exist as some people believe, I guess we will not know because will no longer exist to have any conscious awareness of anything.

 

[razzelflabben]

OK, let us proceed from the witness standpoint then.
You witness a written bible that came into being before you were born. You didn't witness what is written inside. You read what is written inside and take it at its word that it was written by men inspired by a spirit.
Did you witness the spirit? Or did you witness the evidence of printed words admittedly written by men who said they came from a spirit?

From the standpoint of the discussion previously on this topic, the answer would be 1. we experience the truth of the words written and 2. we experience the truth of the HS they witness to. But again, this goes back to the idea of testing things that we believe, not reasons for not testing. As the previous poster and posts talk about some of the limitations, I see those as reasons to test what we believe, rather than not test and rely simply on "faith". Likewise, the argument you are presenting, while not wrong in my mind, seems to give me reason to test not reason to rely on "blind faith".

 

[razzelflabben]

I say we always test our beliefs but we have to also recognize that we never really know the truth...we only believe we know. I believe that truth will come at death .... but again, that is also a statement that cannot be proven so it is a faith statement. If we just cease to exist as some people believe, I guess we will not know because will no longer exist to have any conscious awareness of anything.

I totally agree with this...

 

[blackribbon]

I think we often "test" based on isolated verses that are taken out of context...then people lose faith because God didn't give them their prayer without realizing the promise claimed was aimed at the Jewish people and not all people, or that it was very specific in its intention.

If I based my life on testing instead of faith, then I would believe that God really doesn't care about me because verse after verse calls on "young widows" to remarry for a multitude of reason and yet, He has not provided me anyone to marry this time around.

 

[razzelflabben]

I think we often "test" based on isolated verses that are taken out of context...then people lose faith because God didn't give them their prayer without realizing the promise claimed was aimed at the Jewish people and not all people, or that it was very specific in its intention.

If I based my life on testing instead of faith, then I would believe that God really doesn't care about me because verse after verse calls on "young widows" to remarry for a multitude of reason and yet, He has not provided me anyone to marry this time around.

In my understanding, this goes to what the claim or belief we are believing really is. For example, many people twist scripture to say X then want to test X when really scripture says Y. God also addresses this when He tells us to study to show ourselves approved. The way I see it, making sure we understand what we are suppose to believe when it comes to religion or spiritual matters is itself a form of testing, is it not?

BTW, interesting discussion, thanks

 

[blackribbon]

In my understanding, this goes to what the claim or belief we are believing really is. For example, many people twist scripture to say X then want to test X when really scripture says Y. God also addresses this when He tells us to study to show ourselves approved. The way I see it, making sure we understand what we are suppose to believe when it comes to religion or spiritual matters is itself a form of testing, is it not?

BTW, interesting discussion, thanks

I think it is part of an on-going relationship and part of Christian growth. I don't really see study and growth and application as testing God. I didn't test my husband's love by putting him in situations that he had to pass to prove he loved, but rather I watched for evidence of it in our day to day relationship. On the flip side, I do think he tested me at times and actually, it made me sad because it showed he didn't trust my love to be as unconditional as it was. I also recognize that it came from a hurt place in him and it wasn't so much about me. Wouldn't constant testing show some form of lack of faith?

 

[razzelflabben]

I think it is part of an on-going relationship and part of Christian growth. I don't really see study and growth and application as testing God. I didn't test my husband's love by putting him in situations that he had to pass to prove he loved, but rather I watched for evidence of it in our day to day relationship. On the flip side, I do think he tested me at times and actually, it made me sad because it showed he didn't trust my love to be as unconditional as it was. I also recognize that it came from a hurt place in him and it wasn't so much about me. Wouldn't constant testing show some form of lack of faith?

Which brings up an excellent point. I don't think that all testing is intentional. IOW's you talk about situations that tested that love. How often are we "tested" only to discover that that situation that tested our faith only proved to us that God's love and HIs truth were correct? We taught SS some time ago, one of the things we talked about was trust. The uncomfortable truth is that when we are challenged, when we suffer, our trust/faith is being tested and that testing evidences the truth of God's faithfulness even more.

I think as I personally see it, this question is very important to the believers understanding of knowing how to give an answer. I don't think any of us goes around every moment of the day asking what test we can do to "prove God" today. However, every single day is a test, of our love as well as God's love for us and that testing is important to our understanding of truth and God's protecting us from delusion. Some might call that experiential faith, but I think it is far beyond just experiential in that it is God's design for spiritual growth. Consider James 1, the testing of our faith. This testing produces the evidence that tells us it is truth and not delusion. We live it, we experience it, it is being tested. Sometimes that testing is formal, other times situations, but it is the testing that tells us that it is truth and not delusion. At least that is how I see it. If all I had was "blind faith" and nothing more, I wouldn't even be able to understand who I was believing in because that too would be shifting sand.

 

[blackribbon]

Which brings up an excellent point. I don't think that all testing is intentional. IOW's you talk about situations that tested that love. How often are we "tested" only to discover that that situation that tested our faith only proved to us that God's love and HIs truth were correct? We taught SS some time ago, one of the things we talked about was trust. The uncomfortable truth is that when we are challenged, when we suffer, our trust/faith is being tested and that testing evidences the truth of God's faithfulness even more.

I think as I personally see it, this question is very important to the believers understanding of knowing how to give an answer. I don't think any of us goes around every moment of the day asking what test we can do to "prove God" today. However, every single day is a test, of our love as well as God's love for us and that testing is important to our understanding of truth and God's protecting us from delusion. Some might call that experiential faith, but I think it is far beyond just experiential in that it is God's design for spiritual growth. Consider James 1, the testing of our faith. This testing produces the evidence that tells us it is truth and not delusion. We live it, we experience it, it is being tested. Sometimes that testing is formal, other times situations, but it is the testing that tells us that it is truth and not delusion. At least that is how I see it. If all I had was "blind faith" and nothing more, I wouldn't even be able to understand who I was believing in because that too would be shifting sand.

I think you have some valid points. I also think I have reached a point in my life where I no longer really question what I believe. I know that God is God and that it doesn't matter what I think or feel. He is taking care of me even when I don't feel very taken care of. He is in control even when I don't understand the big picture. My time on this earth is short and really fairly insignificant. It is to be used to serve others. My happiness isn't my goal anymore. I simply don't feel the need to test anything anymore. If I don't understand, I dig deeper in the Bible, pray, and read other credible sources to see if I can find the answers because I know they are there whether or not I understand them.

That doesn't mean I don't have my days of doubt but ultimately, I realize the doubt is from my limited understanding ... not evidence that God may not exist or may not be who He says He is. I am the variable...not God. I no longer need "evidence". I am already convinced.

 

[razzelflabben]

I think you have some valid points. I also think I have reached a point in my life where I no longer really question what I believe. I know that God is God and that it doesn't matter what I think or feel. He is taking care of me even when I don't feel very taken care of. He is in control even when I don't understand the big picture. My time on this earth is short and really fairly insignificant. It is to be used to serve others. My happiness isn't my goal anymore. I simply don't feel the need to test anything anymore. If I don't understand, I dig deeper in the Bible, pray, and read other credible sources to see if I can find the answers because I know they are there whether or not I understand them.

That doesn't mean I don't have my days of doubt but ultimately, I realize the doubt is from my limited understanding ... not evidence that God may not exist or may not be who He says He is. I am the variable...not God. I no longer need "evidence". I am already convinced.

I have said many times to people that I counsel with that I have Loved God for so long, I don't know how to do anything else. I'm not sure that is totally true, but I know it is more true than not. But still, and I see you talking about it as well, even with that degree of faith, you still test by reading and studying the bible and praying. These are all ways of testing to some degree or other. At least when we talk about relationship.

Here is an example. At the moment, my husband is at work. He is out of my vision, kind of like God is out of my vision. Now, I can doubt that he is there, or I can trust that he is there, but in the end of the matter, whether my husband is still existing or not, I can "prove" he is by the text I got not long ago and the phone call I will most likely receive in a few moments. My belief that my husband is not a figment of my imagination when he is not standing in front of me can be tested and in that testing, I can be more sure that my belief is true and not delusion. It all comes back to the OP question not to faith in general. With enough "testing" I come to a point in which I no longer doubt. I just know. That doesn't mean that we stop testing or that we can know with 100% anything, what it means is that if what we believe is questioned, we have collected enough evidence over the years to "prove" that what we believe is truth and not delusion.

See, the question was given to us by an atheist. Most (not all atheists) want to make believers out to be irrational twits that don't think, don't reason, don't have a reason other than what they have been taught for their beliefs. Many christians feed this frenzy by saying things like, "you just have to believe" or other comments that resemble blind faith. But from both experience and observation, the true believer who is in a relationship does NOT rely on "blind faith" at all and in fact, scripture paints a very different view itself. When the believer understands this in a manner in which they can express this understanding, then the dialogue changes and truth becomes obvious. I, like you, no longer doubt...but that doesn't mean that the truth vs. delusion question is not being tested every single day, because it is. It is being tested in how I live, in how others live, in how I interact with my Lord and King, with how I study His word, in how I learn to answer questions like the OP, etc. etc. etc. These are all ways to test the truth so that we are protected from delusion by the HS. See, the tests don't protect us from delusion, the HS does, but according to scripture He does through the use of everyday situations where He is revealed to those that will hear and see with spiritual minds and hearts not fleshly ones.

Isaiah 53:1 Who has believed our report and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed....this revelation is really what the OP is asking at it's heart. What is, or how is the revelation of Jesus Christ revealed to a heart that is dead and cannot reason itself into life. That is why so many get angry when you actually answer the question, because they like being dead in spirit, it is what they know, therefore comfortable to them. The OP question challenges the very notion of what Scripture tells us that there is evidence all around us if we are only willing to open our eyes and see.