Self Deceit and Faith.

by hillary_step 208 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  belbab

  I have been slogging through this fast-moving swamp-like thread for two days, trying to reach a place where I could enter a comment. I am going crawl out of the morass of quote-within-quote-within- quote, and the entangling strange unfamiliar verbiage to my solid ground where I can provide some meaningful comments. I am doing this for myself, as an inspection of my own belief system. If any one else benefits from my reply, that is a bonus.

  I wish to reply to the initial two questions:

  1) In what way is faith not self-deception?
  2) Is a person who has faith in a God that you do not believe in, say for example Siva, practicing a form of self-deception?
  Many thanks – HS

  To commence, I relate an actual event that I experienced some decades ago which will serve as an analogy. Out towards bush country (in eastern Canada) I met a young native lad who told me excitingly that while walking at dusk along a trail. he saw a big snake cross the trail ahead of him and slide down towards the lake. Was he sure? Yes, he replied with certitude and conviction. I went away with the conclusion that he had definitely seen something, but based on my knowledge I did not believe that it was a big snake, but I remained puzzled as to what he did see.
  The next day, I met him again and asked him, could what he have seen been a beaver pulling a birch log down towards the lake. He considered for a moment my question and then replied yes, that is what it could have been.

  In what way does this analogy relate to Hillary’s questions? The native lad believed, that is had faith, that he had seen a big snake. Was this self-deception? No, it was the only explanation he could come up with to explain the event. Where could self-deception enter in? If he had not acknowledged my explanation by considering it alongside his own, but remained adamantly attached to his own belief, conviction, faith, then he would be self-deceived. It is the adamant attachment to a belief in spite of contrary alternative more probable explanations where self-deception comes in. Ego enters in, for example perhaps he has already convinced others that he saw a big snake, and clings to his story so as not to lose face.

  
  Now the flip side of the coin is that I too could become adamantly attached to my explanation. The native’s story is highly improbable, my story is more probable, but a degree of uncertainty is still attached. Maybe later I read a story, where a big tropical snake escapes from transport and goes on a crawl-about, and then leads me to doubt my own story. In spite of my doubts if I continued to promulgate my explanation and endeavored to kill any other, then I would be self-deceived.
  If I named the native as 'an ignorant pagan” and "self-deceived" in his belief, while at the same time I was adamantly convinced and attached to my faith, and claim that because I was a select servant of the “most high” and my words had top priority, I would be in the realms of self-deception.

  Down through the ages, thinking man, has tried to find explanations to what-it-is-all-about. Contemplating observers in the ancient India observed the universe and especially events on the earth. They projected, personified and created, three explanations, that is: Brahma, thecreator and bringer of events. The second is Vishnu who preserves and maintains the statusquo. The third is Shiva, who is the destroyer and transformer of all. That is their explanation of the universe, why should I consider them as self-deceived.

  Moses comes along and introduces one God, who man can only see from the back and speaks to man, not in storms, drought and such cataclysms, but in a still small voice within the hearts of man. He combines all three Hindu Gods in one. Including what is called Satan the Devil. (Today, many believe that if you hear a still small voice in your head you are schizophrenic or obsessed by demons. Only a select few can hear still small voices and they live somewhere in Brooklyn).
  Fast forward to Russell’s day, when the science of Egyptology, astronomy, relativity etc. makes inroads into religious faith, he relegates the once again triune god to the Pliadies. Self-deceived? Yes, if the adherents to his doctrines adamantly and blindly maintain that they alone have the one true faith and all others are self-deceived and are subjects of the realm of the opposer and merit destruction for eternity.

  If one believes that there is more than a hostile cold impersonal universe out there, and attributes personality to the origin to what is, then that is his prerogative. Where is the self-deception enters in is when he becomes totally attached to his belief and endeavors to “kill” any contrary belief that conflicts with his.

  I believe and have faith, totally and unequivocally, in Santa Claus and Merry Christmas to you all.

  
  belbab
• 

  Deputy Dog

  h_s

  For example, an astronomer may through mathematical calculation hypothesize the existance of an unseen planet. Until that planet is seen it remains an hypothesis. One might claim that he has faith that this planet exists, but this would be a mistake. What he has is much more than faith, he has a hypothesized measurement which can be traced, retraced and tested by other astronomers. Where religious faith is concerned there is no such measurement available. A persons inner conviction, as Leo notes is all the measurement that can be given. I posit that this is self-deception, though vastly preferable to crackpot "creationists" thinking they actually have measurable evidence for their theological viewpoints.

  OK then, Quantify "species" for me. How about life, or time before the big bang.
• 

  greendawn

  The human brain is not a closed system but open to the cosmos and through the process of telepathy or thought transference it can communicate with other humans and what's more it can communicate with God and the Angels both benign and evil ones. There is a constant exchange of mental energies through this "wireless" process of which man is a participant.
  
  When the faithful claim they experience the existence of God or benign angels it is through this process that they do so. Also very well known are the wilful contacts of humans with evil spirits that invariably lead to them having serious mental problems and pitiful emotional degradations. Though negative in nature and not to be wished for anyone at least this type of human/angelic interaction shows the existence of invisible intelligent creatures.
  
  Jesus said something that is at the opposite pole of what the evolutionists say: rather than man being totally alone and isolated in the cosmos, man can not do anything unless it is given to him from above.
• 

  hillary_step

  Zico,

  Thank you for your post.

  At the outset, you said you thought anyone with faith was lying to themselves. I think Leolaia was suggesting there can be a subjective experience to faith which is not a lie.

  Well, just to refesh our memories this is what I actually wrote.

  Self deceit is described as a "misconception that is favorable to the person who holds it". My premise is that faith is a form of self-deceit - lying to oneself.

  As Belbab admirably illustrates, and as I noted earlier in my comments, and we are speaking of theological faith in this situation. It is not the concept of a God that is at issue, it is the appendages that are added to it that I am suggesting are a form of self-deciet.

  An analogy, though not theological in nature its similarities are obvious. Three people see the same UFO. One concludes that it is a satellite gyrating in the upper atmosphere, the other that it is a craft from outer space come to warn the human race of a coming catastrophe, the last one that the object is an earthly military craft. Each of them is vehement in their conviction of what was seen. Apart from the fact that something was seen by all three we have three different subjective, not objective views of what was seen.

  A UFO was seen, but no person has falsifiable evidence of what it was and so the subjective views give way to what the viewer feels is the next most logical explanation. The real answer to what this object was should be "I do not know". The self-deception comes in at the moment that appendages are hung on this event.

  Where I would disagree with Leo and in some ways with Belbab, if I have read their analysis correctly and I am still to reply to them point by point, is that gained historical experience is not being factored in to what is a present day question. When the ancients pointed to the sun and named it their God, they would little know that they were deceiving themselves. At that time we would have given subjective weight to what was being told to us in the absence of any better explanation.

  Now, most modern religions have their roots in an ancient past. These religions, simplistically stated, all formed in an attempt to understand what lies at the mysterious root of our existence and consciousness and to give meaning to what is otherwise a meaningless existence. The appendages of faith hung on the peg of this mystery, many of them now discounted by scientifically falsifiable measurement and no doubt many more to be discounted in the future all stand as a monument to self-deception. We convince ourselves of what we need, at the time we need it.

  What I would also suggest is that our knowledge of "god" is no more advanced that it ever has been. We may believes in the concept of a universal god, but we dress he/she/it in the clothes of our own self-deception. I cannot see how a subjective view of what will very probably always be an unknown can carry any weight at all as it is dependent not on fact but fantasy, and that all that can be relied on for a certainty is the measurable and falsifiable at any one time in human development.

  Cheers - HS
• 

  hillary_step

  Belbab,

  Now the flip side of the coin is that I too could become adamantly attached to my explanation. The native’s story is highly improbable, my story is more probable, but a degree of uncertainty is still attached. Maybe later I read a story, where a big tropical snake escapes from transport and goes on a crawl-about, and then leads me to doubt my own story. In spite of my doubts if I continued to promulgate my explanation and endeavored to kill any other, then I would be self-deceived.
  If I named the native as 'an ignorant pagan” and "self-deceived" in his belief, while at the same time I was adamantly convinced and attached to my faith, and claim that because I was a select servant of the “most high” and my words had top priority, I would be in the realms of self-deception.

  We do not hear from you very often, but when we do it is worth the waiting. A very useful post imo.

  I could not agree more with you in the above statement. I would ask this though. Does "faith" itself not demand certainty. Is that not what religious faith is. The more you have, the closer you supposedly are to God?

  If this is the case then surely you are agreeing with me that faith is a form of self-deception?

  Cheers - HS

  PS - I will buy the coffees . ;)
• 

  Brother Apostate

  Gravity will always be a fact, and so will evolution.

  Lol, evolution is a theory, not a fact, lol. It is but one explanation (i.e., theory) of the facts (fossil record, etc), albeit an erroneous one.

  But I repeat myself.

  An analogy, though not theological in nature its similarities are obvious. Three people see the same UFO. One concludes that it is a satellite gyrating in the upper atmosphere, the other that it is a craft from outer space come to warn the human race of a coming catastrophe, the last one that the object is an earthly military craft. Each of them is vehement in their conviction of what was seen. Apart from the fact that something was seen by all three we have three different subjective, not objective views of what was seen.

  A UFO was seen, but no person has falsifiable evidence of what it was and so the subjective views give way to what the viewer feels is the next most logical explanation. The real answer to what this object was should be "I do not know". The self-deception comes in at the moment that appendages are hung on this event.

  Oh, come on already- theories are all about attempting to explain what we observe. But not all theories have equal weight and veracity- some are based on events that have been observed by humans as they occur, others are based on interpreting relics of events that were not observed by humans. And so we come to the real answer- evolutionists develop a theory, based primarily on interpreting relics of events that were not observed by humans, put faith in it, and self-decieve. This, in turn, emboldens atheists to ignore their creator and invent their own moral code.

  To believe that which is clearly designed does not require a designer is the ultimate in self-deception.

  All humans put faith in something. The object of one's faith, whether faith in God or faith in men, is the deciding factor in our outlook and our conclusions.

  In other words, "time will tell" who is deceiving themselves.

  But I repeat myself.

  "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the proving of things not seen."- Hebrews 11:1

  BA- Put faith in God, not men.

  PS- May God have mercy.
• 

  hillary_step

  BA,

  Gravity will always be a fact, and so will evolution.

  But I repeat myself.

  However often you repeat an error it does not become corrected by repetition. When you finally learn this your knowledge base will increase exponentially. Just for the record you are incorrect about this...again.

  Oh, come on already- theories are all about attempting to explain what we observe. But not all theories have equal weight and veracity- some are based on events that have been observed by humans as they occur, others are based on interpreting relics of events that were not observed by humans. And so we come to the real answer- evolutionists develop a theory, based primarily on interpreting relics of events that were not observed by humans, put faith in it, and self-decieve. This, in turn, emboldens atheists to ignore their creator and invent their own moral code.

  I have never seen a person be able to spawn so many logical fallacies in such short space (examples above), have them proved incorrect so often and still emerge with confidence intact.

  What you are doing is proving the premise of my thread for me by example.

  Thank you.

  HS
• 

  hillary_step

  The human brain is not a closed system but open to the cosmos and through the process of telepathy or thought transference it can communicate with other humans and what's more it can communicate with God and the Angels both benign and evil ones. There is a constant exchange of mental energies through this "wireless" process of which man is a participant.

  Another post which either offers evidence to the premise of my thread or proves the need for a medicine to halt the process of self-deception.

  HS
• 

  nvrgnbk

  Another post which either offers evidence to the premise of my thread or proves the need for a medicine to halt the process of self-deception.

  I especially enjoyed that post.
• 

  Brother Apostate

  Gravity will always be a fact, and so will evolution.

  However often you repeat an error it does not become corrected by repetition. When you finally learn this your knowledge base will increase exponentially. Just for the record you are incorrect about this...again.

  It is true that repeating the erroneous statement "evolution is a fact" does not make it a fact, no matter how many times it is repeated. Good observation!

  Those that have been brave enough to answer the question BA and BurnTheShips have provided the following answers, both of which I am sure you will agree are logically flawed -HS:

  I already answered this truthfully in my first reply on this thread, but it went over your head. The only truthful answer to the question is "time will tell" who has been decieved, by themselves or others, and who has been correct. -BA

  "Logically flawed" how? Were not flat-earthers proven wrong with time? With the passage of time, the truth will be revealed. That is truth, not "logically flawed".

  BA seems to be expecting a Biblical judgement day at which time this question will be answered. His faith is measured by his belief in the words of a book. No phenomenological objectivity neccessary. His faith can be measured against the statements in books. When they fail, as they have on numerous occasions, at that moment his faith becomes self-deceit. What he is not prepared to do is answer the question himself.

  Where did I state that my faith is measured by my belief [only, implied] in the words of a book? Where did I state that no phenomenological objectivity is neccessary? When have the statements in the Bible "failed numerous times"? Because your belief in the interpretations didn't turn out as anticipated? Expect the same of your faith in the interpretation/theory known as "evolution". Your self-deceit will be revealed to all in due time. It has already been revealed to me- design requires a designer. That's enough for me to know you are decieving yourself.

  Oh, come on already- theories are all about attempting to explain what we observe. But not all theories have equal weight and veracity- some are based on events that have been observed by humans as they occur, others are based on interpreting relics of events that were not observed by humans. And so we come to the real answer- evolutionists develop a theory, based primarily on interpreting relics of events that were not observed by humans, put faith in it, and self-decieve. This, in turn, emboldens atheists to ignore their creator and invent their own moral code.-BA

  I have never seen a person be able to spawn so many logical fallacies in such short space (examples above), have them proved incorrect so often and still emerge with confidence intact.-HS

  My statement contains "so many logical fallacies", really? Because you say so isn't enough. Point them out, since you've used the plural, point them out, self-deceiver.

  HS is the one using logical fallacies, for example, this straw man of BA:

  His faith is measured by his belief in the words of a book. No phenomenological objectivity neccessary. His faith can be measured against the statements in books. When they fail, as they have on numerous occasions, at that moment his faith becomes self-deceit. What he is not prepared to do is answer the question himself.

  You continually put words in my mouth that I did not state, and assail them, as if I stated them. You create a straw man of my beliefs and statements.

  You have called me a young earth creationist repeatedly, on other threads, which I am not. In this thread alone, you have continued to lie about and mischaracterize my beliefs. You have been proven a liar.

  BA- Tells it like it is.