Ennio Gabriel Peralta Perini รีทวีตแล้ว
This is actually very wrong linguistically and philosophically.
First this is the actual definition of a delusion:
"a false belief or judgment about external reality, held despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary"
Linguistically faith does not satisfy the requirements for the definition, unless you can demonstrate with incontrovertible evidence that there is no God.
Note that I'm not saying the burden of proof is on the atheist, that's a different discussion.
I'm only stating that without incontrovertible evidence you cannot classify faith as a delusion.
But I have more to say.
A belief without evidence and reason about something that isn't true, is just a wrong belief. NOT a delusion.
A belief without evidence and reason about something that is true, is a correct belief.
Two working examples.
Scenario 1:
I believe there are aliens on Mars.
I have no evidence for it.
IF we explore Mars and IF there are no aliens, then it's a false belief.
If I still believe it after the incontrovertible evidence, THEN it becomes a delusion.
Scenario 2:
2 - I believe there are aliens on Mars.
I have no evidence for it.
IF we explore Mars and IF we find the aliens, then it was a true belief.
So returning to faith, we proved faith cannot be linguistically classified as a delusion.
Whether or not the belief is false or correct cannot be known by us before incontrovertible evidence.
Moreover whether or not we know it, the belief is already true or false based on the ontology of the thing which is believed.
If God does not exist, my belief would be false whether I know it or not.
If after proof of God's non existence I still believed it, then it becomes a delusion .
But if God DOES exist, then my belief would be correct whether I know it or not, even in the absence of initial evidence.
Denying the existence of God after the incontrovertible evidence would then become the delusion.
The Skeptic@TheSkepticWiz
English
