luvluv

Hi kids.

I'm going to address the link S.P. posted, I just have to read the whole page first. I might not get to it today, but bear with me. I've been busy.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K,
I can't really speak for other people's personal experiences Selsaral...therefore I don't. I can only speak for my own personal experiences.

Moreover, I am not presenting my criteria of why I chose the faith I did. As I mentioned to K...that's a perfectly fine discussion to have, but it's not the topic I asked about. Perhaps someone should start a thread.

All I am simply asking is 'Why...given the evidence...is my belief in God irrational?'




Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

luvluv

Came across this link to a good essay summarizing James' points:

http://alien.dowling.edu/~cperring/williamjames.html

I think it develops James' points more effectively than I did.

Family Man

I agree that the author of this piece explains James' position pretty well. However, it has serious shortcomings as it fails to critique the weaknesses of what James had to say.

First, James appears to be describing what people may do, but not -- as Clifford does -- what they should do. Again, it comes down to the arbitrary nature of the live criteria. Since it essentially validates any belief that the holder deems meaningful, it validates all beliefs that are non-trivial. That may be what people do, but it also suggests that all beliefs are equally valid. (I'm sure everyone could come up with examples of heinous beliefs that are or were "live" to the people who held them). Hence, James, by merely describing what people do, hasn't really answered Clifford's effort to show what people should do when they decide on their beliefs.

Second:

But this point is never supported. I have yet to see a single example of a decision about beliefs that has to be made by going beyond the evidence. As Clifford pointed out, we might need to make decisions without sufficient evidence, but we never AFAIK have to make a decision about whether we should believe something without sufficient evidence. Remember that Clifford is discussing beliefs, not actions.

Third, in his discussion of Clifford, James appears to think him an absolutist. But Clifford doesn't require perfect knowledge, just sufficient evidence -- i.e. the empiricist position.

Fourth:
Clifford certainly wouldn't disagree with this.

Fifth: James seems to think that if one chooses not to believe on the grounds of insufficient evidence then one is guilty of intellectual cowardice: that he is afraid of error. But deciding not to believe something is just as courageous as deciding to believe, at times even more so given the pressure that society puts on us at times to adopt certain beliefs. If I choose not to believe in God am I not, at least theoretically, taking a risk? Could I not be in error? And in fact, doesn't James' position suggest that we adopt everything we find live? Is there no restriction at all to our beliefs? Isn't James taking the cowardly position that we should never risk non-belief of something we find attractive?

Sixth:
When? Although the author says:

the example he provides (from James) directly contradicts this assertion. As I pointed out in a previous post, with the stakes being high and the evidence lacking, the passengers wisely choose the side of caution and sit on their hands. In fact, I would argue that the more "urgent" the question (urgent being defined as having an effect on us) the more careful we are with our beliefs. Are you going to hire a person for your company? You check out the references. You're going to invest in a company? A wise person does his homework. Only when the effect on us is relatively trivial do we trust others in the way the James suggests. In fact, I think that explains the popularity of God-belief. It is not a very urgent belief because, as Pascal's Wager points out, being wrong about it really has no effect. A dead Christian is just as dead as an atheist. There is very little risk in the Christian belief system as compared to many of the other beliefs we must adopt during our lifetime.

Seventh: And it is very clear that James is basically presenting a revised version of Pascal's Wager, as this shows:

And why should we be impressed with an argument that has been discredited for centuries?

In summary, James' position is an inadequate framework for people to use in deciding what to believe. Unless the live criteria can be defined in such a way that it restricts what we believe to something that is demonstrably valid -- as Clifford does -- the best that can be said for it is that it describes what people do, not what they should do.

Family Man

To demonstrate how James fails, imagine that a doctor says that, to be healthy, one should exercise thirty minutes a day. If I say, but that's not what people do -- they usually just sit on the couch -- I haven't really addressed the doctor's point.

That is the situation we have here in James. He hasn't addressed Clifford's point.

Jobar

SOMMS:
I am not attempting to offer you evidence.

One sentence later-

Here is some evidence that I see...

Now, really. What am I to say to that?

SOMMS, I might at some other time get very angry at you, for such intellectual dishonesty. What an incredible example of doublespeak, and doublethink! Can you even see how destructive statements like that are to any argument whatsoever that you might try to make?

I think that theists build high walls within their minds, which allow them to juxtapose such utter contradictions in a single post. I truly feel sorry for you, SOMMS. I hope one day you can tear down that wall- even though the storm of cognitive dissonance that will result will be awful for you to bear.

K

SOMMS:

No, unless you define the Dodge Caravan to be the only car that exists or the greatest car that exists. The definition of the Christian God is such that His existence DOES say something about the existence of other gods.

Let me put it this way. In order to be coherent in this respect, you would have to assert (directly or indirectly) that NOBODY of a non-Christian faith has accomplished something difficult, feels prayers, were answered, and feels happy and content. We can call these things Personal Evidence. Here's the logic.

1. Personal Evidence implies the existence of professed god.

2. Therefore, your Personal Evidence implies the existence of the Christian God.

3. The existence of the Christian God implies the non-existence of any other gods by His very definition.

4. The non-existence of other gods implies that there is no Personal Evidence for these gods since Personal Evidence for them would imply that they existed.

Absolutely false.

Let me define X as the one and only odd number. By claiming that X exists, I've made a statement that rejects the existence of every odd number except X. The same thing applies when I say that X is the one and only god.

I hope my answer above has shown you that I am pressing this point because it is extremely important. I'm not just avoiding an issue. If you are willing to change your definition of God to the pantheistic version, then these criticisms disappear. Somehow I don't think that's going to happen.

This is probably not relevant. In order for your belief to be coherent (in this regard), the evidence you offered as convincing of the Christian God (personal evidence) would have to be equally convincing of a non-Christian god if the same evidence were offered for that god.

I don't care which god you've chosen. If you've chosen one of the gods for the personal evidence you've listed, then it is inconsistent unless one of two things is true:

1. There is no personal evidence for any god other than the one you've chosen.

2. All of the gods supported by personal evidence can exist at the same time.

Agreed. That's why I'm not discussing that. The fact that you chose ANY of them for the reasons you've offered makes your belief incoherent (unless you believe that nobody else feels there is similar personal evidence for a god other than your own).

Selsaral

I am calling into question your evidence. Other people's experiences have a direct impact on the issue. They show that your experiences are not unique to you or your religion. You use your experiences as evidence of the existence of god but refuse to consider the possibilty that you are no different than all the bigfootists and scientologists. You don't exist in a vaccum, and looking around and thinking about how other humans act can shed light on you yourself think, feel, and act. I suggest your belief in god is irrational based upon your evidence of 'personal experience' because looking at the rest of humanity should debunk the validity of your personal experience, or at least call it into serious question.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Jobar,
Sorry...cut-n-paste error. The top sentence should have read...


I am not attempting to offer you objective evidence (of God).



Thanks for the heads up.



Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K,
This is a start.

Have I said this K?

Have I said other gods don't exist?

Yes or no.



K...3 is wrong. Even God claims there are other gods.

Exodus 20:3
You shall have no other gods before me.

Deuteronomy 6:14
Do not follow other gods, the gods of the peoples around you;





Have I said this?



This does not seem to be the case. If you weren't avoiding the issue you would assess, line by line, the evidence I've given and describe to me (and others) why this should or should not support my belief in God.


Could you please do this?






Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas