Do you mean no historical evidence taking place or no historical evidence of them taking place in the rabbinical era? — Fooloso4

I don't accept the historicity of the Bible, so I'm not using that as a source of proof. Whether there were stonings in the Near East in the Bronze and Iron ages, I don't know as the historical record is pretty much lacking unless there's an archeological record. What I can say is that the institutional religious records written by the rabbis do not reflect stonings occurring, with that era beginning in the first century CE.

I'm also not committed to referring to the ancient Hebrews as Jews until much later in the biblical history, considering the religion of sacrifice centering around the Temple is a much different religion that what is practiced today.

So there is for you no connection between your moral realism and your claims about God and identification with Judaism? — Fooloso4

None might be an overstatement, but to the extent there is a dispute between a Judaic concept and my personal belief, my personal belief trumps.

In other words, your definition of God is subjective and based on the presupposition that there must be a meaning and purpose that is not subjective. — Fooloso4

Maybe as a broad sketch I might agree with this. I'd have to think on it. I do believe in the subjectivity of faith in a Kierkegaardian sort of way. I'm trying to make sense of it honestly.

To be clear, are you claiming that the quotes from Isaiah and Job are false? And that they are false because they do not conform to your definition of God as good? A definition that "we" or "one" should accept because that is what a reasonable person should do? — Fooloso4

I'm in disagreement with any statement that represents God as not being the source of the good or morality, whether that be Isiah, the Koran, or whoever says something contrary to what I think.

My take on the Bible is that it is an ancient source of wisdom, in particular how it has been interpreted, meaning our wisest ancestors used it as the vehicle to describe good from evil and to take a stab out of describing God. I think they did a far better job with the Bible, than say the Scientologists have done with Dianetics.

These are not mutually exclusive, many but not all scholars are believers. — Fooloso4

True.

Are you claiming that stoning was never taken literally? If it conflates your dubious distinction it does so for good reason. The rabbis who interpret the Law, both then and now, were both believers and biblical scholars. — Fooloso4

There is no historical evidence of the stonings taking place and extremely few death penalties being carrier out in the rabbinical era beginning in the 1st century CE. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Judaism ( "The Mishnah states that a Sanhedrin that executes one person in seven years — or seventy years, according to Eleazar ben Azariah — is considered bloodthirsty.")

This is to say that that biblically imposed death penalties occurred in antiquity far less often than secular based death penalties in modernity.

How do you reconcile such changes with your claim that there is an objective morality? — Fooloso4

Because I have never suggested, hinted, or intimated that the Bible is the source of morality. I hold to moral realism, a claim that there is a true right or wrong, regardless of what the current population might hold.

So what would you suggest is the best way to answer the question? — Fooloso4

Through personal experience, introspection, and a need for there to be an anchor for meaning and purpose.

You shifted from biblical scholarship to modern biblical scholarship. The inclusion of the perspective of time is significant. — Fooloso4

What is significant isn't when it occurred as much as who is doing the scholarship. It's a distinction between believers and those not committed to interpreting it from a perspective of belief.

At least we can define God as the good and deny unholy acts are decreed by him, but only falsely in his name.
— Hanover

seriously? Or are you saying that you are not prepared to back up your claim? When you say "we" who are you referring to? — Fooloso4

I'm saying that I'm not committing to your strawmen and am asserting what I take to be a more proper conception of God.

I'm using "we" in the third person objective, synonymous with "one." It expresses an ideal, or what a reasonable person should do.

hard to do, but there is something in the attempt: better to be a pig satisfied than a philosopher unsatisfied, or not — Constance

That's a Mill quote, not Bentham.

That pleasure is, call it apriori good, is my position. Pleasure qua pleasure cannot be other than good. It is apodictically good. — Constance

So Kant's categorical imperative should have resulted in his being a Utilitarian since the hedonistic principle of Bentham was synthetic a priori?

I raised this problem before, but you ignored it. By what light do we read such passages from Deuteronomy? I think it obvious that we read them in light of beliefs and values which are not fixed and eternal, but relative to time and place. Those who wrote and those who first heard the Law did not think that it was not to be taken literally. — Fooloso4

There are two ways to read the Bible: (1) from a traditional view of a believer or (2) from the view of biblical scholarship. If you want an answer under #1, you will need to look at the tradition you are referencing and we can look at all the theology and additional texts used by that group. An Orthodox Jew would read it differently than a Reform Jew and differently than a Christian, and there are variations among Christian denominations.

Your last sentence quoted above is simply not correct and it conflates the views of #1 and #2. If you want to stand in the position of a believer, you are correct in asserting that Moses received the law from Mount Sinai and he accepted it as the word of God, but you also (depending upon your religious viewpoint) might be accepting that an oral law was also handed down that day that dramatically added to and altered the written word. That is, if you're a believer, tell me what you believe, and I'll believe you, but the views you're expressing of believers do not describe any real group of believers.

If you take the position of #2 (a modern biblical scholar), you will not say such things as "those who first heard the law" because that assumes a sudden handing down of law as opposed to hundreds of years of the Bible being written, it being edited, and it being combined by an editor into a single scroll. It also assumes a single march step through time of how the Bible was used and accepted, ignoring the fact that rabbinical Judaism is not at all similar to the Jewish practice during the times described prior to the destruction of the Temple.

What you are describing in your post is a modern fundamentalism that asserts a simple literalism to the Bible that isn't historically something biblical adherents held to, and it's certainly not something I adhere to. For that reason, it's a strawman.

As to your comment that biblical interpretations by adherents have varied through history and that fact is obvious, I agree. The insertion of biblical interpretation into this conversation only arose in this conversation when someone asked me about the historical accuracy of the flood (which I denied), but I never suggested the question of who God was best answered by referinng to the Bible.

The only strawman here is the one you made. It is not a matter of reading the myths literally. How do you understand the following:

Forming light, and preparing darkness, Making peace, and preparing evil, I [am] Jehovah, doing all these things.'
— Isaiah 45:7

Shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?”
— Job 2:10 — Fooloso4

You would be interested in my interpretation of biblical text? Why? I think we could spend weeks on Job alone, considering that does present a very complicated discussion of theodicy.

I'm telling you that do no harm is a foundation that gets entangled with complex affairs in which things are brought into competition and contextualized, relativized, and it is here doing harm becomes ambiguous. — Constance

You are making an impossible distinction here, arguing that there are two definitions of terms (1) the absolute meaning and (2) the contextualized meaning. All actually fall under category #2.

Consider the color example. It remains what it is, most emphatically and without exemption, an absolute one might say (though this term is difficult); yet it can be taken up is countless ways that compromise this simplicity. — Constance

There is no essence to the term "yellow." "Yellow" means however it is used, and there is not a Platonic form that represents true yellow from which to measure. You're arguing essentialism, which isn't a sustainable position.

Generally speaking, pleasure os good. — Constance

If one holds to hedonism, pleasure is good by definition, but that position isn't universally held.

Do no harm. — Constance

But I'm saying sometimes we ought to harm and that your view is idiosyncratic, but you just keep telling me it's obvious we shouldn't harm.

Weak dodge. — 180 Proof

Nah, you're trying to make the fact that it's fictional mean that every fact contained in it is false. To be fictional simply means the factual claims in the book need not be true for the relevance of the story, but it doesn't require they be false.

I think there's been a major distraction here. Kant wasn't concerned with whether we had hard wired empirical data in our brains, like if we have an innate fear of falling and instinctively cover our heads when we fall, or if infants instinctively turn their head to locate the nipple when the cheek is stroked.

His concern was whether there were a priori synthetic judgments, meaning could some new fact be known about the world through reason alone. That is, unlike knowing that bachelors are unmarried (analytic), when we determine the length of the hypotenuse from the length of the other sides of the right triangle, we now have new knowledge prior to experience (synthetic).

The idea that love is undisputably good is a most Christian sentiment and is understandably a sentiment that might be thought of as universal by someone immersed in Christian society, but, believe it or not, Judaism finds hate a virtue when deserved, drawing a sharp contrast against the Christian virtue of turning the other cheek.

"Regarding a rasha, a Hebrew term for the hopelessly wicked, the Talmud clearly states: mitzvah lisnoso—one is obligated to hate him."

https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/research_sites/cjl/texts/cjrelations/resources/articles/soloveitchikm.htm

So what scriptures say about "God" is fictional but "God" itself is not a fictional character (like "Abe Lincoln" in that old Star Trek episode "The Savage Curtain" or "Jesus" in Monty Python's Life of Brian)? — 180 Proof

I can only repeat what I've said, which is that the fictionality of the Bible neither affirms nor negates its literal statements. I mean could there have been a Tiny Tim and Ebenezer Scrooge? I guess, but who cares? The story's literal truth doesn't impact its meaning.

Indeed. Do you know have a view why it is that Jewish fundamentalism hasn't gone down this path, given that Islamic fundamentalism (by contrast) seems quite ready to kill women, children and apostates in the name of Koranic fidelity? — Tom Storm

I tend to draw very blurred lines between theology and politics, meaning why a civilization behaves as it does might be related to underlying worldviews and religious views, but also to wars, leadership, and all sorts of political forces. I also don't subscribe to the belief that religious beliefs are immutable, as they change with demographic changes, economic issues, and all things political as well.

So why are Muslims where they are right now? Maybe look at the Koran in part, but look at the whole picture. A single invasion, for instance, can change history more quickly than theological shift.

As to what I was getting at about the use of the Hebrew Bible for the Orthodox views, the Talmud (the supposed oral tradition) and the rabbinic law arising from that, dramatically altered the religion. The Torah does not have priority over the Talmud. See, generally, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_Torah

So what is the truth about God as depicted in the stories of wrath and destruction? Do you think the depictions are false because they do not conform to God as you define him? One might just as well say that God as you define him is a fiction. It seems far more simplistic and lacking in sophistication. — Fooloso4

You submit a strawman that certainly no significant group adheres to, which is that the Hebrew Bible is to be read literally and in isolation. No one does that. If they did, adherents would be stoning little girls. That they don't should give you pause as to what they must be looking at to decide how to act.

So, unless you really want to study the theology of religious groups that hold the Bible sacred, and you think that somehow this bears on the question of whether God is evil (which is the impetus of this recent turn in discussion), we can do that.

That discussion will in itself be a response to a strawman because I've never stated that God's definition is to be found in the Bible, but the conversation would be instructive to the fact that your own understanding of how the Hebrew Bible is interpreted and applied is incorrect.

So your Bible / Qur'an is a "work of fiction"? Thus, it's protagonist "YHWH" / "Allah" is also fictional? — 180 Proof

The Bible is fiction, but fiction doesn't mean it can't contain truths. That a fictional book speaks of God (or trees) doesn't mean God (or trees) don't exist. I assume that's the drift of your question.

So, perhaps, one of the first insights of the via negativa on justice is that one should not impose one's conception of justice on others... — Tobias

Wouldn't the least just among us celebrate this decision the most?

Love cannot be bad. It is as impossible as a logical contradiction. — Constance

Suppose I love murder?

Not trying to be difficult here, but the idea that there is universal agreement on what is good (or not good as the OP suggests) and we just need to talk it out to see what it is so we can arrive at this naturally understood goodness necessarily assumes Attila the Hun and Adolph Hitler don't get a seat at the brainstorm session. On what basis do we exclude them?

That is to say, I have no doubt we, educated Westerners positioned in 2022 could all find some common ground regarding the ethics du jour, but that's as far as we'd get. The question would remain how we'd have confidence that our justice is true justice, and more meta-ethically whether speaking of True justice makes sense.

The Bible lied? — Jackson

Must we really start this discussion from the simplistic strawmen or can we fast forward to a place of higher sophistication? Modern fundamentalist readings are absurd. There weren't polar bears and camels on an ark bouncing around in a violent storm for 40 days and nights.

I also don't recall remotely suggesting the Bible was the work of God.

But to your question, a work of fiction doesn't lie. Winnie the Pooh isn't a lie. It's a tale of talking bears and donkeys, but I don't think you'd read it thinking it were non-fiction. By the same token, that it is fiction doesn’t mean it can't contain truths.

Didn't God flood the world? — Jackson

No.

Religion can make good people believe bad things, like that God can order slayings of any person at anytime. — Gregory

It's always people who do the slayings, whether in the name of God or, more topically, Putin. At least we can define God as the good and deny unholy acts are decreed by him, but only falsely in his name. The same cannot be said of Putin. He is not an ideal or representation of the good.

Kant was responsive to Hume's extreme empiricism and his denial of knowledge of causation, a claim Kant claims is synthetic a priori and necessary for comprehension of the world.

That is, your attempt to understand the synthetic a priori is being impacted by your evaluation of differing philosopher's views.

Disrespecting the body of the diceased is almost universally condemned. — Tobias

No, people tend to respect the corpses of the respected, but the disrespected are often unceremoniously thrown into mass graves.

It seems useless. Synthetic knowledge is nothing but regular old empirical knowledge and analytic knowledge is trivial. People wave a priori knowledge around like it's a magic wand, but it's just fancy words for regular old stuff. — T Clark

That's not correct. Empirical knowledge is known a posteriori, not a priori.. The roots of those words, prior and post, reference how the knowledge is obtained: before or after experience.

You're conflating synthetic with a posteriori. Synthetic references a truth about the world, analytic a definitional truth.

Calling analytic truths trivial overlooks the significance of syllogistic logic and its truth preserving function.

You're scratching the surface of Kant, so it's a bit early for you to critique the Critique.

I disagree with the empirical claim of a generally universal underlying moral consensus.

Great atrocities have been and continue to be committed with moral justifications being offered.

Is that your view or just a random sentence? — I like sushi

Well, this is what got me thinking about all this;

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concluding_Unscientific_Postscript_to_Philosophical_Fragments

"Subjectivity is truth." Discuss.

Hmmm, well now, seems I’ve gotten myself into quite the pickle. :brow:

Perhaps 180 Proof can rescue my dignity. — praxis

:clap: :fire:

our "dignity" is fine, praxis; Hanover, however, ain't looking so good (re: denialism) it seems to me. — 180 Proof

Strawman. Non-sequitur. :roll:

This began as a comparison of alcohol to faith as in either could offer meaning.
— Hanover

I can’t tell if you’re kidding. — praxis

Does "religion" make the believer's life "meaningful"? No more, it seems to me, than alcohol makes the alcoholic's life "meaningful". — 180 Proof

What is the value of knowing that all bachelors are unmarried? — T Clark

That's an example of an analytic truth, not synthetic. The value is that it is definitional. It tells you what a bachelor is.

Geometrical truths are submitted by Kant to be synthetic a priori in that they tell you something substantive about the world without necessarily having to be experienced.

Quine disputes the analytic/synthetic distinction. You can look that up if interested.

This is a strange statement for me because I don’t consider intoxication or toxins “evil.” — praxis

You're going to have to go back and re-contextualize this whole alcohol discussion. I have no personal opposition to drinking alcohol and your pointing out there is no decontextualized meaning of the word "toxin" is obvious.

This began as a comparison of alcohol to faith as in either could offer meaning. I countered in two ways: (1) I have seen lives destroyed by alcohol, but not so much by faith, and (2) if you insist you have found the fountain of meaning in the bottle, then drink up.

That is to say, I don't think that faith and alcohol consumption are similar enough experiences for meaningful comparison, but if you insist they are, then have at it and enjoy your meaning on the rocks.

You say potato, I say comiconomenclaturist — Tom Storm

If the question is "Does alcohol give you cirrhosis?," the answer is yes no matter what you believe. If the question is "Does alcohol give your life meaning?," that depends. Me, no, but if you say otherwise for you, then yes for you.

Faith is as perilous a path as reason. It can devolve to a neurotic, narcissistic pursuit of glory (see Karen Horney's Neurosis and Human Growth). — ZzzoneiroCosm

That I agree with. I would place the evil on the actions, not the intent, so it's not the faith that is doing the harm, but the attempted imposition of one's values upon another.

And that really is what my objection has been here, which is the suggestion that another person's discovery of the meaning of life need be imposed on those who have rejected it. If someone has found the meaning of life deciphering analytic syllogisms, good for them. I don't know how they can claim their discovery superior to mine if mine subjectively works for me in terms of providing me meaning.

The similarity is in your dependence. You say yourself that it gives your life meaning. If that’s the case then you’re dependent on it. Without if you would feeling the sting of nihilism (analogous to delirium tremens). — praxis

The critical distinction between your analogizing faith to alcoholism is that alcohol is being used in the analogy as an intoxicant, making it definitionally a toxin and an evil. As I previously mentioned and what wasn't addressed was that you would need to show the devastating implications of faith as you see in alcoholism.

That is, my question was whether ruined lives are characteristics of Jews, Christians, and Muslims as we see in the alcoholic.

If, as you're implying here, you're using alcohol as a benign example of a way to bring about bliss without the negative implications, as if it might offer a euphoria that includes leaving the user with a state of long term meaning and contentment, then it would be analogous, but that's not what alcohol is. If it were, and it did not have its negative effects, I suppose I would be advocating its usage. I just don't think the meaning of life has ever been found at the bottom of a bottle, although many have looked there.

You need to explain why I should seek empirical and rational truth for its own sake.
— Hanover
No, I do not. — 180 Proof

Yet you do explain:

Since time "wastes" all things and us too, gaining some understanding for its own sake seems like a more enriching way of "wasting" this interval between the two oblivions rather than making believe 'shit made up just to flatter and console ourselves' in anxious denial of the existential mediocrity principle (i.e. boredom). " — 180 Proof

And I accept your reason for you. There's no basis here except that "it seems" an enriching way to live your life. This really isn't about you, so I'm not sure why you're telling me what you like to do. Why devolve into the subjectivity you previously criticized?

Philosophical hold nearly as profound a meaningfulness as spiritual pursuits. Dispelling a fatal confusion is a profoundly meaningful achievement - and borders on salvation. It is indeed at times far more spiritually transfiguring than - typically lukewarm - dreams of salvation. — ZzzoneiroCosm

If that's your belief, then the altar of philosophy is where you should kneel. Like I said, I'm not an evangelical. You do you.

My point is simply that if the quest is for meaning, then the quest for knowledge will only get you closer to meaning to the extent you equate meaning with knowledge. That's a personal preference. If knowing the ins and outs of our world leads you to have a subjectively meaningful life, then do that.

I do believe I view intellectual masturbation more pleasurable than most. That's why I'm here in this forum. Doing this right here is not the meaning of life though. Not mine at least. But if yours, wow, but ok.

Again, this topic ain't about you. :roll: — 180 Proof

Such is our point of contention. You deny the significance of the subjective commitment to faith and I hold it primary. The basis for my position is that it imbues my life with meaning. I can see no reason to substitute your objective (i.e. to live the examined life) for mine.

You need to explain why I should seek empirical and rational truth for its own sake. Why is that the universal good? I recognize the hedonistic value of intellectual pursuits, but if that's all there is, I quickly reach an existential problem centering around why am I wasting my time learning the intricacies of our randomly created world?

My only objection is that it's a two-way street. — god must be atheist

But that is my point as well.

I'm not proposing an either/or (ala Kierkergaard) and can as much enjoy the intellectual pursuits as Socrates and recognize the importance of science as Pierce, but that doesn't negate the possibility of faith as well.

But where do you arrive at the idea that the examined life (as translated by modern sensibilities) is a virtuous raison d'etre other than your subjective assessment? If my life suffers in all objective measure as the result of my rejection of faith, is such just my unfortunate fate even though there was a way to have avoided it? Why must I worship at your alter? Because it is the path to Truth? But we're right back in our circle - I must accept that the rational pursuit of truth is a valid reason to exist in order to be persuaded by rationality alone.

How aren't you similar to the evangelical at my door telling me to follow his path to truth so that I can experience true joy? Is it impossible to believe my beliefs do accomplish exactly as I say they do?

The point here is that the way of Athens is not the only way to a meaningful life. The way of Jerusalem works just as well. Either path is a choice

Moral freedom requires injustice. — unenlightened

Nice.

If I were trying "to assess your subjective state ... actually experiencing", I would agree with you, sir, but I have not claimed or implied any such thing. Your non sequitur is what's "non-sensical". Faith-based rationalizations (and delusions) abound. — 180 Proof

Does "religion" make the believer's life "meaningful"? No more, it seems to me, than alcohol makes the alcoholic's life "meaningful". — 180 Proof

You have offered an opinion as to what "seems to you," which is how you think things must seem to me, namely that I derive the same sort of benefit an alcoholic receives from his drink. I'm telling you that I don't. It's different. My faith doesn't cause me to wreck my car, divorce my wife, lose my job, and destroy my liver. In fact, it causes me no internal strife. So how do you assess what my faith does to me from your vantage point at your keyboard?

Your final sentence ("Faith-based rationalizations (and delusions) abound") attempts to wedge in what you want desperately to argue, which is that my beliefs are factually wrong. I've, at best, argued from pragmatism. I'm not asserting what reality is, but just how best to live my life. "My" is in bold because I trust you when you say that what I say works for me doesn't work for you.

This is about Hanover being Hanover, accepting whatever abuse you wish to throw my way in terms of my believing in complete and utter bullshit. I do accept those criticisms smugly, to be sure, because I have lived it both ways, and I know personally what offers my life meaning and direction and what does not.

And the point of all of this is to offer elbow room in this crowded world of ideas for religion, which does have a role, and for which I think is the primary motivation behind your objections, although correct me if I'm wrong.

Does "religion" make the believer's life "meaningful"? No more, it seems to me, than alcohol makes the alcoholic's life "meaningful". Like other forms of intoxication, religious faith exchanges sobriety for "comfort" (often to the point of delusion (e.g. Haglund)). — 180 Proof

I trust you in your statement that you would not find any value to holding to religious faith and that it would not enhance your life in any way. I find your assessment that I would have as meaningful of a life without faith as pretty non-sensical, as if you know better than me what I'm actually experiencing. That is, I'm not in a position to assess your subjective state and you're not in a position to assess mine. We're just left having to trust one another when we tell each other what affords our respective lives meaning.

As I've also said:

If, at the end of one's life, one has lived a life they found complete and meaningful, what difference does it make that the person might have lived a life filled with unprovable and even false beliefs? — Hanover

In order to make your analogy apt, that religion is akin to alcohol and other toxins, you will need to demonstrate that like the alcoholic whose life often ends in broken relationships, destroyed families, financial ruin, desperation, legal troubles, and general instability, so goes the person of faith.

Does that describe the typical life of the devout Jew, Muslim, or Christian?

And it's an odd twist here, with the atheist knocking at my door and handing me his literature so that I can see his Way. If you find atheism the way to a meaningful or productive life (or whatever your objective might be), then do that. Even if I had positive proof that God existed, if you have found happiness in your belief he didn't exist, why would I impose?

My point is that being comforted by some idea is not evidence that the idea is true, just as being offended by someone's claim does not mean that your claim is true or their claim is false. Our personal feelings have no bearing on what is true or false.

I'm not interested in Haglund's feelings. I'm interested in the truth. — Harry Hindu

It's obvious that our personal comfort in believing something has no bearing on the truth of it. To the extent one can choose to believe or not when there's a lack of evidence of something, that would be a nod towards pragmatism. That is, if I choose to believe in a fantastical claim that in no way interferes with my daily existence, but it does offer me comfort, then that would be a basis to believe in it, while admittedly not making the belief true. I choose to believe for the positive effects, not because of a delusion that I have arrived at empirical evidence or that my position is logically entailed.

Asserting that you know more than others while at the same time giving no evidence is a symptom of delusions of grandeur. — Harry Hindu

There might be some degree of cognitive dissonance in maintaining a belief in God that you should know is not valid, but I wouldn't describe that as having special access to the divine that would amount to a delusion of grandeur. The typical theist claims that knowledge of the divine is available to anyone who seeks it, so I don't agree with your psychological assessment.

My point here is simply that decisions of how one wishes to live one's life, including what foundational truths one wishes to adopt, need not be based upon upon empirical evidence or logical dictates, but it could just be a matter of personal preference. If, at the end of one's life, one has lived a life they found complete and meaningful, what difference does it make that the person might have lived a life filled with unprovable and even false beliefs?

I find the objection that one must accept atheism as true because it is true, even if it means a life a despair, to be ironically antithetical to the ideology of secular humanism. That is, if all there is to this great big universe in terms of meaning is what we humans give it, then why deprive it of sacred meaning if that will elevate the lives of humanity?

I'm submitting that we should hold to beliefs that make life meaningful as opposed to insisting we live with the cold reality of meaningless if meaningless is what there really is behind the curtain.

And before you say that atheism is what gives your life meaning, however that might be, please recall my prior comment, which is that simply because you've found the fountain of meaning in your atheism, that doesn't mean you need to proselytize it to others because it is likely some are not constructed as you are and they do find meaning in what you think to be delusions.