Starting to believe

[Emower]

So, I get what you are saying. Inherently flawed though, depends on what a person want to govern their life. If it is logic and reason then it is flawed. If it is emotion and feeling then asking what you want to believe is perfectly valid.

I don't think so. There is manipulated emotion as we well know in the church. There are emotional fictions we enjoy in film and story. And there is the authenticity of emotion lived. Certainly the meaning I mentioned before is based in emotion for most of us. Those we love for example is meaningful.

I think we agree there is a marked difference in those experiences, though they trigger on the same emotional lines. To live inside a mental fantasy can only be described as valid from within the fantasy. From without, it is mental illness. And it is quantifiable illness to the degree it hampers their interaction with others and achieving a self sustaining life.

It is not perfectly nor even equally valid. Entertainments have their place. But to create a fiction to deny reality, or even only parts of it, as a world view is pretty much the definition of delusional.

Wouldn't we then define pretty much all religious people as delusional? I realize that many do, and that religious people bristle at this, and that this is where logic, philosophy, and religion collide. At some point don't we need to stop forcing faith in a box, let religious people have some room and not try to classify them as somehow wrong, only to have them come back and rail against us for forgetting our God? Not trying to convince you, just curious about your perspective.

[dogbite]

Wouldn't we then define pretty much all religious people as delusional? I realize that many do, and that religious people bristle at this, and that this is where logic, philosophy, and religion collide. At some point don't we need to stop forcing faith in a box, let religious people have some room and not try to classify them as somehow wrong, only to have them come back and rail against us for forgetting our God? Not trying to convince you, just curious about your perspective.

Within certain limits, yes they are delusional. However that is not a complete picture and more of this picture is still to be discovered.

The emotion of religious, well, fervor or the spirit has been identified as elevation. This is a real experience that evidence suggests was rewarded in evolution for individuals to cooperate in ever larger groups. The triggers gave structure and useful hierarchy to the group as well.

The emotion is real. The delusion occurs in the interpretation given to the emotional state, it's meaning. For millennia this delusion had been impenetrable to us. Only relatively recently have we begun to pierce this darkness and separate religious and secular structures in our society. And our thinking because of new evidence.

Emotions are not a reliable source of truth. This is a touchstone of the exmormon experience. But it is not yet widely understood in much of humanity.

Evolution is not necessarily pushing us towards truth and objective reality, only in passing on our genes. It has created many useful shortcuts that have actually hampered our ability to perceive accurately.

[Emower]

Assuming that starting a world view based only upon what you want to believe involves risking delusion or mental illness, I suppose that may be true. But also basing a worldview solely upon what you have evidence for also involves risking delusion and mental illness (e.g. I know driving a car involves risk, if I don't want risk I won't drive). I'm thinking of the Big Bang Theory, Sheldon cooper and his mother. She is über religious to the point where it affects her interactions and she may possibly be a little delusional as a character on the show. Sheldon is so rational and logical to the point of also being delusional, and mentally ill.

[Emower]

Emotions are not a reliable source of truth. This is a touchstone of the exmormon experience.

True, but I think one can base a worldview on something unprovable, and also do it in a rational manner. "This specific idea of God seems to make me a better person, his idea helps me deal with life, therefore I think I will believe in it." At its base maybe you are aware of your "choice" to believe and that can be a touchstone/grounding mechanism?

[dogbite]

"This specific idea of God seems to make me a better person, his idea helps me deal with life, therefore I think I will believe in it."

I question that it is reasonable. It has many hidden assumptions that are packed into that statement. It's sloppy. Indeed your use of rational strikes me as aproppriate. In epistemology, there are two camps. The rational who believe that the mind is also a source of Truth, as in rationalize. And the empiricissts who demand evidence. Thus I changed to using reasonable rather than rational.

But certainly we all know people for whom that is enough. Rationalism isn't evil automatically. But it makes all ideas and claims equally true/valid absent evidence. So many nonsense but unfalsifiable claims. See also Russell's teapot.

That's one reason I mentioned the explanatory power of a world view for judging it's quality and strength.