K

SOMMS:

Yes I see what you're saying. Did you read what I said? The insane person can't use evidence to belief rational things, but the rest of society can determine when a member is acting insane. Evidence offers a yardstick for sanity. Precusive faith doesn't. I'll ask you again. What do you use to call Berkowitz and others insane if you're not using evidence?

"Experienced" is one of those flag words that indicates the evidence may not have been reliable. Did you experience this evidence with your senses or with your emotions?

Do you accept identical evidence from Muslims as proof that Islam is the true faith? Obviously not. This is a huge indicator that you are not using reliable evidence.

Ramanujan was one of the greatest mathematicians the world has ever seen. He claimed that his village's local godess, Namagiri, would whisper the equations in his ear. Your coding challenge was obviously a great accomplisment. And just as obviously it pales in comparison to the accomplishments of Ramanujan. Do you accept this as proof that Hinduism is the true religion?

Do you accept New Agers' senses of peace, happiness, and strength as proof that their beliefs are correct?

See the remarks about Ramanujan above.

In short, this type of personal evidence is not the kind that should be trusted. You obviously don't feel that this type of evidence is acceptable for those of other religions or you would have to believe that all religions are true despite the fact that many are mutually exclusive.

luvluv

Family Man:

Arbitrary was probably the wrong word. Unpredictable is probably more along the lines of what I was intending. I only meant that there is not necessarily any rhyme or reason to what makes an option live to one person and not live to another. One intelligent person looks at all the evidence and feels that there is a strong possibility that God exists. Another intelligent person looks at the all the evidence and feels that there is a strong possibility that God doesn't exist.

Why is the option live for one person and not for the other? I don't know.

The point is that your accusation that "live" = "personal preference" is inaccurate. What we would prefer is not necessarily what we find we are able to believe. I may be mistaking you for someone else, but haven't you said in our previous conversations that you would prefer it if an omnibenevolent God actually existed? But is His existnence a live option for you?

It has nothing directly to do with Popularity. Again, you live in a country where it is popular to believe in Christianity, but you find that Christianity is not a live option for you. Therefore what makes an option live is not ultimately dependant on any Argument from Popularity.

What makes an option live for an individual is a mysterious part of his internal chemistry so to speak. Some people are inclined to believe, others are inclined to disbelieve. There is no rhyme or reason that we can see why some people are one way and some people are the other. (I would guess that it comes down to our will, ultimately. We believe what we want to believe and disbelieve what we do not want to believe.) That was a large part of James' point.

With all due respect, this comment suggests to me that you completely misunderstand what is being discussed here, or at the very least you aren't being careful with your words.

Firstly, as I've said ad nasuem, no belief is being justified in the essay. What is being justified is an alternative to evidentialism called precursive faith. Secondly, the essay is not an argument it is simply another option for those who are willing to take it. It gives rational grounds and provides a systematic framework for forming beliefs which one does not, and by definition cannot, have compelling evidence for. It is an alternative for withholding beliefs for those who do not wish to withhold belief, for those who would say "I must not miss this, if it is true."

Really, you're kind of wasting your time trying to find a hole in an argument that isn't even being made. James' was not trying to convince anyone that God exists (again, God is used as an example , the main point of the essay is not to promote theistic belief) only that there is a rational, pragamatic basis for believing that He does if you are able to do so.

Family Man, if you are not able to do so, if you do not find God to be a live option... walk away from the conversation. It doesn't apply to you. You don't need to discredit precursive faith as a methodology. (You use it anyway, for most of your beliefs. Anytime you believe anything to be true without conclusive, certain evidence... you are using precursive faith). You can just say "That's nice, but it doesn't work for me."

Can you give me a good reason why a person should not believe something for which they find the evidence to be inconclusive, when that something is live (for them), forced, momentous, and it is something towards which they feel the compulsion "I must not miss this, if it is true ?

If the something wasn't God, but say the chance that a certain cure for a terminal illness they had could be purchased in the experimental stages in Europe, or that the love of their life whom they thought they had lost was only waiting for their call to return to them, would you be more or less willing to accept the prospect? Would you really have a person in either of the above situations to patiently wait out the evidence, even when it is unlikely that the evidence would ever come [I]unless they acted[I/]? Or would you expect them to act, and risk everything for what was important to them?

And how does one decide how much evidence is enough evidence?

Honestly, existence itself is sufficient evidence for myself, and many others to ponder the existence of God. The design elements in the universe and in life put it out of question for me personally.

Evidentialism is no less arbitrary, ultimately, than is precursive faith, particularly in regards to the question of God. How does one know how much evidence is necessary to prove the existence of God?

luvluv

K:

It applies to any atheist who states that the existence of God is a postive claim that must be proven, or which requires compelling evidence.

James says that the existence of God can be believed in even if the evidence is inconclusive.

I think the origin of life, the problem of the mind, existence itself, and the teleological arguments to be considerable defeaters of naturalism. Until plausible explanations for these are found, it is simply arrogant in my mind for any atheist to state that there is no evidence for God or that God is a superflous hypothesis. If you were honest, you would have to admit that while the above problems do not prove the existence of God, the certainly make His existence possible. That's all some people need to believe in Him.

It may not apply to many atheists, but it is not meant simply as a formula for converting atheists. (The world does not revolve around you guys, you know) It is also meant as a justification for those who already hold theistic beliefs.

luvluv

Andy:

No, I think James' definition of momentous applies only to the individual believer, not to society as a whole. If I find it momentous, that is enough. It doesn't really matter, for my belief formation, whether it is momentous to the rest of the world or not. I have peace and joy and an assurance that ultimately everything will turn out for the good. None of these things were possible for me when I was not a committed Christian. I find that I would not be able to escape existential angst were I an atheist. (And I don't see how any atheist can ignore or discount the ultimate meaningless of everything, except by ignoring it. But not everyone can ignore the notion that all of existence is meaningless and destined to end not with a bang, but a whimper.)

That's a very dishonest, prejudiced, and loaded way of stating the situation. I get to feel that every human life is of everlasting, ultimate value. I get to believe that since human beings are immortal, ultimately what happens to us individually is more important than what happens to entities, organizations, and corporations that will outlive us here on earth. It get to believe that love is at the center of all existence, that it is ultimately the reason for everything. That does not make me feel superior to anyone, it makes me feel humbled. (And by the way, you certainly are not in any way suggesting that there is not a severe epidemic of superiority in this mutual admiration society known as internet infidels are you? Puh-leaze.)

There are hundreds of benefits of believing that are not as destructive or as pathological as you make them sound. Conversely, there are destructive and pathological reasons to be atheists. Being as neither of us likely hold our opinions out of destructive or pathological motivations, and none of us have any way of knowing the reasons for the positions of anyone BUT ourselves, let's leave them out of the conversation.

Hey, I have an idea. How about an honest discussion?

But then, I am assuming you would have to base those benefits on beliefs other than religious ones. How do you know those beliefs are true? (Again, precursive faith is not exclusively for religious beliefs.) If you find benefits similar to the benefits of religion by being a secular humanist, how do you know secular humanism is a true or accurate picture of what is truly best for mankind? How do you know that Social Darwinism is not the superior method? How do you set the standards for the evidence by which to compare Social Darwinism to Secular Humanism? In my opinion you do not escape any of the problems you are describing by being an evidentialist.

In the end, though, as I told Family Man, this is an individual issue. If you personally don't find anything momentous in religion... walk away. There's nothing left for you here. That is what James' philosophy is all about. Maybe you could apply precursive faith to your secular humanism or to some other belief which would be important to believe but which is not certain (That you will have healthy children, for example). But if you find religious belief to not be momentous, then not even James would reccomend you risk believing it. But if someone does, why not?

You know, dearest atheists, it is not necessary for you to dismantle every argument for believing in God's existence. It is sufficient for you simply to disagree with it, or to familiarize yourself enough with it to know that it cannot help you. One would only need to dismantle an argument like this one if one were trying to convince oneself... but surely that is not the case for any of you. Right?

Jobar

Luvluv, we atheists pride ourselves on our rationality. If there is a single theistic argument which is rational, there would be many fewer atheists. So in fact we *do* have to disprove all apologetic arguments, or our skepticism is not tenable.

And though you may still disagree, James' precursive faith looks no different to me- to any of us doubters- than just plain ol' blind faith.

luvluv

Jobar:

Almost all the apologetic arguments are rational, they just aren't conclusive. What isn't rational about the kalaam cosmological argument, for example?

You don't have to disprove all apologetic arguments. If you could, there would hardly be any need to be skeptical. Everyone would know that the apologetic arguments were false and no one would believe in God.

It is partially. It simply provides a framework for circumstances where it is rational to use plain old faith. (I don't know about the blind part.) When evidence is inconclusive, and conclusive evidence is not forthcoming within our lifetime, and when the subject of belief is live, forced, and momentous, one can risk belief if one is inclined to. It is irrational to wait out evidence for certain propositions.

Family Man

In other words, it's arbitrary. You've simply provided another definition for it.

Which makes the whole framework worthless.

On the contrary, it appears to be right on the mark.

Considering this live concept appears to have no validity, I really don't have an answer to this question.

And while I agree that what I prefer is not necessarily what I believe, that appears to be because of the evidence. I might prefer to believe that my son be a genius, but the evidence points to him being slightly above average in intelligence. In other words, we don't need James' theory to explain why people might accept things they don't particularly want.


It doesn't appear that what is "live" is dependent on anything but the whim of the beholder.

No, the way you have defined it it is completely arbitrary.

Yeah, that coming from someone who can't define "live" in any way that makes the concept useful.

Meaning, of course, that the unspecified belief is being justified. What is the difference between that and saying that "it provides rational grounds and provides a systematic framework for forming beliefs" other than the latter is wordy and reads like it was written by a politician? No, luvluv, I understand exactly what has been presented in this thread. It's pretty worthless in my opinion.

Yes, luvluv, I understand it. But if the "live" option is an arbitrary whim of the beholder, the framework is worthless. It doesn't provide a rational basis for anything. It utterly fails because it justifies practically everything.

It doesn't work at all.

I'm not saying you shouldn't. I'm saying that the argument doesn't do what it promises to do. And, applied to other situations, it could be harmful. Personally, it strikes me as an argument a con man would love. Or a preacher passing around the collection plate.

You mean like psychic surgery?

I wouldn't use precursive belief to do it. I would use a cost-benefit analysis taking in the consideration of how the decision effects not only myself but the people I might leave behind along with the evidence that I do have. Frankly, I wouldn't want to leave my family destitute because I allowed my desperation to overwhelm my good judgement. Your example is exactly why this framework is dangerous.

That's a good question, and could hardly be handled on this thread.

What design elements? If you think so, God is a pretty poor architect. But that's another thread, I think.

If you mean that there is no absolute standard, you're right. But there is considerably less arbitariness than one that basically says: "It is rational to believe anything you personally find compelling."

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K,
I don't believe it. I think we are actually making headway with this conversation. Your above statement is illuminating. Here's where we differ: I am primarily concerned with the individual in question...you are primarily concerned with the rest of society (ie everybody else). What I'm am saying is that relative to the individual evidence doesn't necessarily help...as is the case with delusional insanity. You are asking 'How does a society determine what is true and what is made up?'

The deal is K...these questions we are pondering, the issue of precursive faith IS personal...it has nothing to do with 'everybody else' or what everybody but you thinks. James essay outlines why personal precursive faith is justified. It isn't talking about insane people. It isn't talking about how a society should build bridges.





Evidence offers no yardstick for sanity relative to the individual in question which is what we are talking about. And for the last time K...James essay has nothing to do with judging insanity.

What everbody else did...his behavior and the fact that he was killing people. Do you honestly think the police took his statement about the 2000 year old dog...sent it to the county forensic team to research the validity of this claim, when the researchers had gone through all their experiments and documentation and determined that a 2000 year old dog was unlikely...THEN declared him insane? No. He was running around killing people...they locked him up.



Both. Moreover, other people corraborated this evidence with their senses.


You seem to have missed the point here K. I'm not saying that others beliefs are irrational. I'm not trying to prove to you that Christianity is better than all other religions. I'm not trying to prove God to you. I'm not even saying your unbelief in God is irrational. All I am saying is this: Given the above evidence and experiences that I have had...how is my belief in God 'lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence' (ie irrational)?




Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

PopeInTheWoods

Greeting O Ambassador of Lovetron.
Okay, but then we're getting into what Family Man is talking about (better than my attempts), that what James proposes is some combination of tautological and trivial.
Then in the course of composing your 1300+ posts, you've mananged not to absorb a whole lot from the SecWeb. Just because you don't see how atheists can "deal with it" (and I strongly object to your characterizations of "it"), doesn't mean they can't. Yeesh, I can understand many reasons why someone might believe in the supernatural, even if I don't think they're valid.
My language may have been a bit harsh (my previous post on the same subject went unanswered), but my I stand by my method (examining the unsavory consequences of the proposed argument).
Value to whom? My life is of extremely high value to me, and will probably be so throughout my existence (how is that not "everlasting" from my POV?). And I realize that most people's lives are of extremely high value to them.
I'm not convinced that these are automatically good things (the thought of immortality scared the pants off me when I was six years old), or that they're exclusive to theism. I'm humbled by the nature of existence without all the supernatural stuff.
Projecting much? I've mad no suggestion either way. Are you asserting that there is such an epidemic?
Such as?
Such as? The only reason I can think of to be an atheist is lacking belief in any gods. If you hate god or want to spite your family, you might be an anti-theist or anti-religionist.
Sounds good in theory. But what about the first half of your post?
Starting to get WAY off topic here. Even if "evidentialist" views have these problems [digression]Which is far from conceded, as half the Philosophy, S&S, and MF&P posts show. My quick take is that "evidentialism" works so well in most part of everyone's lives, theist or not.[/digression], they are still problems with James.
I don't "believe in" secular humanism, it's merely the closest description to how I live. Again, I'm not seeing where James is saying anything useful that could not also be applied to beliefs and actions which both you and I would have ethical issues with.
I'm not an enemy of belief per se, which is why I usually hang around the political, activist, and community fora more than these philosophical areas, so I'm going to leave (the much more capable) Family Man and K to continue deconstructing (and destructing) James. I simply did not want the assertion of the obvious "in this world" benefits exclusive to theism to go unchallenged.

Andy

Family Man

Let me make what I'm saying here plain.

In order to establish a rational framework for a belief, that framework must weed out irrational beliefs. James' framework doesn't do that. The momentous and forced criteria cull out trivial beliefs (such as the existence of unicorns) but an irrational belief can be both momentous and forced.

That leaves live to weed out the irrational, but the live criteria does nothing at all! It basically says that if the individual likes a belief that is forced and momentous it is ok. As noted, it is completely arbitrary and therefore allows an individual to justify an irrational belief.

So at the end of the day, we are left with a rational framework that doesn't work as advertised.

All the rest of the stuff on this thread misses the point. No, it is not intended to prove the existence of God. Yes, it applies to individuals but it does so fallaciously. And yes, irrational beliefs can be harmless and give people the warm fuzzies. They can also do great harm. None of that has a thing to do with the validity of James' framework, and that is all I'm concerned with.