Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K,
Good...at least we agree about this point.

Not really. Forced has little to do with truth...rather it is the requirement of action if the issue is true. For example, 'Black holes exist'. This is a live issue but no faith is required here because the issue is not forced. Another example, 'Tribe of cannibals are after me and and there is an old bridge up ahead'. This is also a live issue. However, this issue is forced because a decision must be made. One is justified in putting faith in the catwalk even though they have no proof (or even evidence) that it will hold. So here are two live situations where action (or inaction) is determined by whether or not they are forced. I'm pretty sure you would agree with this.


Tell me: Why would someone believe this?


Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Jobar
However, a rational position requires more revelation (more than just some athiest making an off-hand comment in an argument) of 'invisible pink unicorn' before warranting further investigation into the matter.



Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Family Man

Why would anyone believe that a comet was really spaceship that would whisk them away to paradise if they would just kill themselves?

Why would anyone believe that a ordinary Jewish carpenter who lived 2000 years ago was really a god who sacrificed himself to himself so that anyone who happened to believe this gets to live forever?

People believe stupid things all the time. Christianity has simply reached a level of respectability because it managed to get itself set up as the official religion of the Roman Empire which allowed it perpetual itself through time.

All you have here is an Argument from Popularity.

Gary Welsh

I don't see how this analogy with the physicist helps your case, luvluv. The physicist, ideally, is endorsing theories based on how plausible he thinks they are... and if there are two theories that he can't choose between, except arbitrarily or for sentimental reasons (such as because one of the theories is his), it behooves him to recognize and admit this is the case, and not whole-heartedly commit to one theory or the other.

There's nothing wrong with using it when choosing between equally plausible options, or when the plausibility of both options is indeterminate.

Undoubtedly, there are many times in life in which we have to "go with our feelings," intuition, preference, etc. because we do not have the luxury to evaluate and analyze and estimate plausibility to our heart's content... So, there are many times in which the Jamesian formula does make a certain kind of sense. I just don't think it works when applied to most religious beliefs. At least it doesn't for me, because I have had the luxury to examine and study religion, to my heart's content, and make my own evaluations about what is plausible or not... Maybe James' formula applies when we don't have the time and luxury for evidentialism...

Again, we need to make a distinction between absolute certain knowledge and a reasonable assessment of plausibility. A la Descartes we cannot be absolutely certain that the external world really exists, and that we are not really brains plugged into a virtual reality program run by a malevolent genius. There is no way to disprove this thesis, and thus, no way to be absolutely certain it is not the case. But... why do we have to set the bar at absolute certainty? Can't we just evaluate whether some scenarios are more plausible than others? Isn't this in fact, what we do? When I say "I know the external world exists," isn't this really what I am saying: "I find the scenario that 'the external world exists' much more plausible than other remotely possible but hyperbolically unlikely scenarios such as 'I am living in a virtual reality program similar to that in the film, The Matrix,' and thus, that is my default presupposition."?

If your honest evaluation of the evidence is that both scenarios are equally likely (or simply that you can't assess which is more likely), then the Jamesian formula might apply. You can rationally pick one over the other based on extra-evidentiary criteria: "To jump or not to jump? We can't see across the chasm in the darkness! But if we stay here, we know we'll die. So, we may as well believe in a ledge on the other side we can jump to! Jump! Jump! Believe and jump!"

That's exactly why I think some brands of theism are so appealing. Many people look at atheism as the fatalistic and resigned view: our ledge is crumbling, and what can we do about it? Nothing. Make the best of things, while we're still here. At least some forms of theism offer more than that. At least there is a hope for more, if not the guarantee. And isn't that better than cold, dead, hopeless materialism, on its crumbling ledge?

K

It's taken a while, but we've finally come to the point I (and many others) have been making all along. It's not rational to believe this because there isn't sufficient evidence to suggest that it may be true. That's the same reason it isn't rational to believe in God without evidence.

luvluv

Hi kids.

Sorry about the non-participation. Just popped in to say I am volunteering for a local film festival right now and I won't come up for air until about Tuesday. I'll try to answer as many questions as were directed to me at that time.

luvluv

I haven't read through the thread, so forgive me if someone has answered this.

I believe I said before that James said that an option is only momentous if it's benefits or losses obtain in this lifetime. What is momentous is the prospect of all the benefits of believing that the proposition is true.

What is momentous about believing in God is the enormous benefits of the actual belief (the peace, the assurance, etc.) and the actual drawbacks of unbelief (existential angst and whatnot). It can vary legitimately from person to person, but a proposition is momentous if the benefits of believing it are momentous, not if what you are believing is momentous. We are not talking about the benefits that accrue in the next life IF GOD EXISTS we are talking about the benefits that accrue in this lifetime IF WE BELIEVE GOD EXISTS.

It does not matter that, IF GOD EXISTS, you will get to go to heaven. What matters is that IF YOU BELIEVE IN GOD you will be able to live with a sense of eternal purpose, feel loved, etc. The actual benefits of believing in God may vary from person to person. Some who believe might not be able to feel loved. This is a very subjective process.

For a physicist, for example, it might be momentous to believe that string theory can be proven in her lifetime. For me... not so momentous. However, it is kind of hard for me to believe that there is anyone for whom the benefits of believing in God are not momentous. Is there any atheist here whose life would not be even slightly altered if they now held the belief that God existed?

It is forced if you miss these benefits of belief just as certainly if you withhold belief as you would if you believed in the negative. If belief in God could produce a faith and a peace in you unlike any that could be had by being an atheist, and if you decide to become an agnostic, you forfeit that peace just as much as you would if you decided to become a strong atheist. As far as I can tell, James is arguing against withholding belief when you have a strong inclination to form a positive belief and the evidence is not totally conclusive.

And also K, to object to any of these criteria in isolation is kind of a waste of time. There are three criteria for a reason. If any option does not fit ALL THREE, then it is not a worthy object of precursive faith for you.

(This is my interpretation, I think SOMMS may have another, and to be honest his is just as legitimate from what I can dig out of James' article. Has anyone else read it? I know Kenny has. I wish he would join in and let me know if I am butchering this thing.)

Family Man:

The options you state would be forced and momentous, even for us. All questions of the existence of any concept of ultimate reality will be momentous and forced for all of us. Which is why there is a THIRD CRITERIA. Buddhist beliefs are not live for us. If it is not in the cards at all for you to believe in a certain God concept, then James' formula won't work for you.

Again, there are THREE criteria.

Three.

3.

Trois.

If an option doesn't fit all three for an individual believer (and this is by nature a subjective formula) then it is not an option which precursive faith can help you decide.

Family Man

Yes, I understand that (though perhaps you haven't had time to read all my posts). But the way that the third criteria is applied is completely arbitrary. It is essentially "I like this idea therefore it is 'live'." As I've said previously, what this means is that your argument boils down to an Argument from Popularity. In short, I'm not terribly impressed. Clifford's way of viewing it is far more universal, far less arbitrary and therefore much, much better than this precursive faith idea.

K

luvluv:

My point was that it is incredibly easy to come up with a formula that yields an infinite number of momentous and forced beliefs that have no supporting evidence. By James' reasoning, it is rational to believe any of these as long as the belief is live (one can believe them).

If I believe that my true destiny is to solve the Jewish problem while establishing the Fatherland as the foundation of an aryan nation that will last 3000 years, it is rational to do so.

If the whole Scientology thing sounds earthshatteringly appealing to me, it is rational to believe that a science fiction writer actually wrote a holy text.

If I can believe in healing crystals, astrology and channelling the dead, it is rational to believe in them.

If I can convince myself that tattooing the 178th digit of pi on my left butt cheek will provide me with perfect moral wisdom, it is rational for me to believe that as well.

My question is this: Do you consider these rational beliefs since they meet all of James' criteria for the people who believe them?

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K,
And I am glad we are finally here. I believe several of our conversations have come to this same juncture.

Just so we are on the same page...you do agree then, more or less, that if a person finds X live, forced and momentous then that person is justified in having faith in X? (Yes I know this doesn't mean X is true or false).


You mean rational for you personally, right?

It is rational for me to believe in God because I find God live, forced and momentous.

In addition, I see sufficient evidence that suggests God existence is true whereas I seen none for 'invisible pink unicorn'.


Are you claiming you don't see evidence that seperates the issue of God from the issue of 'invisible pink unicorn'?




Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas