K

luvluv:

I think I understand your position. But it seems to me that it definitely also applies to astrology. The believers of astrology find meaning and purpose in it in this lifetime. The same could be said for white supremecists, New Age crystal healers, and those who believe they can use a medium to speak with their dead loved ones.

Again, the argument says absolutely nothing about the underlying belief. I know you realize this, but this seems much more like a topic for Science and Skepticism than for the Existence of God.

K

SOMMS:

My response to you was not based on James' argument, but your comment:

My point being that I've often seen theist use arguments like, "unless you can see all of existence, you can't prove that God doesn't exist - that's why it's ridiculous to claim that He doesn't."

I don't know if you personally have ever made an arguement like the one above, but your comment that I quoted seems to imply that it is perfectly acceptable - maybe even preferential - to make a judgement with the information at hand instead of waiting for God to be flushed out of the remaining gaps where He could still be hiding.

Vorkosigan

I don't think so. I believe that by momentous, James meant that believing something entails a benefit GREATER than not belieiving it, and that this benefit obtains even if what you believe in is false. Belief in God, for example, can imbue one's life with a meaning and purpose even if it turns out there is no God.

The problem is that these "benefits" are values, luv. They don't exist in some objective sense. James' argument has its limited force only if the believer will opt for values that are positive for society as a whole.

Bush believes that Hussein is so evil it is worth killing tens of thousands to get him. This belief is fully justified under James' rubric, as I understand it.

Apparently James' presumes some metaethic that it is OK to have an irrational belief if it is good. But if the metaethic exists, then there is no need to have the belief. In other words, in James' argument, beliefs are validated by some outside ethical framework. But if one has the ethical framework, what point is the belief?

It is hard to see what benefits come in this lifetime from believing that children should be brutally sacrificed to demons in the Pentagon which would be GREATER THAN the drawbacks of this action (jailtime, imprisonment,execution).

Yet, people sacrifice children from time to time. Bush' Middle East policy, in part predicated on religious concerns, will mean the deaths of many children. In fact, Rapture nuts view the deaths of billions in the Great Tribulation as a positive thing. Not everyone has the same moral calculus as you and I do.

So merely because the believer thinks his beliefs are momentous, does not make them rational. Even if they lead to socially positive outcomes, that in itself will not make them rational. They may be ethically correct, but that is a different issue.

his notion of faith as a method of justifying any particular belief but a defense of the decision to believe despite a lack of conclusive evidence.

Yes, but the problem is that James' has dragged in the notion that the values of the believer are important in the decision to believe, and thus left himself open to criticism from that direction.

Well, firstly I don't think James' notion is ethically unsound it is ethically neutral. At any rate I don't see where evidentialism has any moral superiority to other philosophical positions.

It does, though, since right action cannot be taken unless information about the world is right. In the arena of values this does not apply.

In what sense is it morally wrong to believe something without evidence? Suppose that what you are believing without evidence is morally good? Suppose I have no evidence that humans are of everlasting worth and signifigance, would it be immoral to decide to believe that they are?

No, but that kind of belief is not the kind James and Clifford are talking about. An ethical conviction is not the same as presuming that this or that Deity actually exists. The latter is a statement about the nature of reality, and subject to Clifford's dictum. That is why I feel that James' has not really addressed Clifford's point, at least in this passage.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

The feeling of being free from external authority informs much of the decision to leave religion, IMHO. Some atheists may feel that feeling is worth the risk of God actually existing.

LOL. I think a lot of Christians are subconsciously consumed with jealousy at the moral courage of atheism, and live in fear that somewhere, someone is actually having fun.

Theli

Considering the odds, who can blame us?

Gary Welsh

Interesting post, luvluv. Although James is thought-provoking, ultimately I find this sort of reasoning to be flawed, or left wanting. James frames the situation as if we have no way of knowing whether the supernatural exists, no way to verify it or disprove it... And so, since we are in a state of philosophical equilibrium, what's the harm in using our own predilections as the tie-breaker? I suppose it is encouraging to theists to have philosophers as grand as William James on their side... But I don't find this reasoning to be very impressive, regardless of who it comes from.

If we can't verify or disprove something, with anything approaching certainty, that says nothing about our ability to ascertain whether something is plausible or not. I can't disprove the Loch Ness monster, but that doesn't make me an agnostic on the subject. I don't believe it exists. If evidence to the contrary is provided, I will gladly stand corrected. But what "evidence" has been provided so far is too subjective and obscure to satisfy me.
The same reasoning applies to religion. I'm not ruling out the possibility of gods, angels, etc. I'm not dismissing them out of hand, simply because I don't like the idea of them, or prefer a universe without them. But it would be disingenuous if I took the position of an agnostic just to be polite to theists. I really don't believe these entities exist -- I don't think I can disprove them, I just haven't seen any decent evidence for them. All of the "evidence" provided so far is too subjective and obscure to satisfy me.

When it comes to examining specific religions, such as Christianity, I find that ascertaining plausibility is what I can't suppress. I just don't find the Bible plausible. What if I want to believe it, but simply don't find it plausible? That doesn't mean I don't find a kind of rough wisdom in some parts of it, but I can say that about the works of other religions, as well as non-religious works, too. But the claims of walking on water, parting the sea, talking asses and serpents, flaming swords, fiery chariots, storms of brimstone, plagues of locusts, and so on make the Bible inherently implausible, not because I don't want any of it to be true, but because these are the earmarks of mythology and primitive culture, an inability to distinguish fact from fiction.

James may find certain brands of theism comforting, but personally, I can't be comforted by something which is based upon that which causes me so much cognitive dissonance. It's all well and good to talk about theism in a high-minded, philosophical way, ignoring the parlor tricks of turning water into wine and making donkeys talk. But when you really get down to it, you can't divorce the comforting god-concept of a Harvard psychology professor from the mythological bedrock it is ultimately rooted in.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K,
Alright, we are probably close to being on the same track now. However, my comment was not intended as some rendition of the above (though I do believe there is some truth to it). Rather my comment was more or less conveying the stance many (read almost all) atheists/agnostics on this board take.

For me, James' sums it up pretty well...

(Referring to the issue 'Do you like me or not')

This accurately frames the situation many atheists are in (and I was in when I was an athiest)...and echos something I've brought up before.



What I find particularly hypcritical about this stance is that most that invoke it don't adhere to it in any other part of their lives. For if one must not move until objective evidence is provided to do so...then one has no business doing almost anything. Research, exploration, romantic advance...even going to the store are all forfeit. Even logic requires precursive faith in that one must first accept it as truth and then and only then begin describing the world by it.


[edit:thought I'd add]
I have nothing against evidentualism...I do have something against selective evidentualism. It seems that people only require objective evidence when it protects their world view.
[/edit]


Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Jamie_L

A few thoughts to add:

It may be rational, but that says nothing of the truth of the belief. In some sense, this isn't an arguement for the existence of God. It's just an arguement that there's nothing wrong with believing in God, even if it's not true.

But, on some level, this idea doesn't seem to fit reality. People don't examine something they think may not be true, find it has benefits, then decide it's rational to think that it's true. They decide what they believe is true, then they discover the benefits of the belief system. No one feels belief in God is live, momentous, and forced unless they believe it's true. So, this notion of it being "rational" puts the cart before the horse.

Really, the two options:
1. I must not miss this if it is true
and
2. I must not be taken by this if it is false
are not the way most (or at least many) people actuall think.

What people actually think is:
1. This seems likely to be true.
2. This seems likely to be false.

This is a false dilemma for the atheist, because the atheist first concludes theism isn't true. From that point on, there is no fear of being taken by it or of missing out on it.

The same is true for the theist, I believe. The theist does not actually think I must not be taken by this if it is false," because the theist first believes it is not false. Likewise, theists (that I know, anyway) don't form their belief based on a desire not to miss out on the benefits, but on a simple perception that it is true.

This whole line of reasoning seems to go against the way people actually form their beliefs, so it doesn't carry much weight for me.

I don't worry about being taken by religion if it is false. I don't worry about missing out on the benefits of atheism if it is true. Theism just doesn't appear to be true. Like all other situations in which I find something seems highly unlikely to be true, I conclude that, until further evidence changes my mind, it is likely not true.

Jamie

K

SOMMS:

I find it very hard to believe that you apply this philosophy to every part of your life. Do you honestly believe that people can channel prehistoric dolphins who can give you life altering guidance or that an astrologer can read your future in the stars? You don't actually require evidence to believe in these things, do you? That would be requiring evidence in parts of your life and not others. That's hypocritical according to your statement above.

PopeInTheWoods

I strongly disagree. My (atheistic) life has an ultimate meaning and purpose to me.

Maybe you should try "The Universe has an utimate meaning," or "I will live forever in paradise," as the thoughts that provide peace in this life to supernaturalists exclusively.

Andy