Family Man

Just so that it is clear why you are clearly not worth my time, you claim that you never said there was no logic behind Clifford's position. Yet when I claimed there was logic you said on April 6th:

AND

If I have to post his logic for you, how in the world can you now claim that you did see the logic? You're playing dishonest games, luvluv, and I'm not doing it anymore.

luvluv

1) You said there was a strong logical argument that it was immoral to believe without a strong evidential or logical basis for it.

I asked YOU to provide such an argument. I by that first quote I clearly DID NOT state that there was no logic in James argument.

2) You said he had irrefutable logic for the postion that believing not based on faith was immoral.

I asked you to present this irrefutable logic. You didn't.

Again, in that statement it is pretty darn crystal clear that I was NOT saying there was no logic in James arguments, only that he never presented a formal logical argument for the immorality of believing without evidence. He presented a hypothetical anectdotal case with was far less than exhaustive, and certainly does not have anything like enough force for anyone to consider it "irrefutable."

In both cases I was challenging you to back up statements that you made about Clifford. I wasn't disparaging Clifford at all.

Family Man

On another thread, you claim simultaneously that you post with class yet that on this and related threads you had given me an "intellectual beating." Exactly how you reconcile those two statements is a little incomprehensible to me, but let's examine this for a minute.

Your big point on this thread is that Clifford doesn't account for properly basic beliefs. True enough. The question then becomes how significant this is. Not accounting for properly basic beliefs doesn't imply that he hasn't accounted for non-properly basic beliefs. I submit that he has. This being the case, I further note that there necessarily must be a limited number of properly basic beliefs. I further note the number of possible non-properly basic beliefs are infinite. I finally note that properly basic beliefs appear to be completely non-controversial. The conclusion I come to is that your big point is in truth quite a trivial one, and certainly not worth the time we spent on it. Add it to the "gotcha" method of your debating technique, and it amazes me that you'd put yourself forth as someone who posts with class.

You once said to me that it is dangerous to post without the appropriate philosophical background. I reply that it dangerous to post without thinking through the relevance and implications of your position.

If that was your only misstep on this thread, I wouldn't think that much of it. But in fact you have been in full denial mode throughout this thread. As a result you clearly either misread or deliberately distorted both what Clifford and James said in their essays as well as denying the obvious. Here's a list of things I can think of off the top of my head.

1. You claimed that James' essay wasn't about religion. In fact, James states in his opening paragraph that his essay was about religion, and religion is a theme repeatedly brought up throughout the essay.

2. You repeatedly made the same mistake James made when he stated the Clifford required absolute proof, when in reality he simply asked for sufficient evidence. I had to repeat myself several times before you finally got the point.

3. You then claimed that Clifford had to define what sufficient evidence was, though that was a clearly impossible task and that there are other cases where we use such generalities without thinking it had to be defined in a general way (beyond a reasonable doubt as an example).

4. You claim that the live attribute isn't arbitrary. But the two times you tried to explain the concept you couldn't define it in a non-arbitrary way.

5. Then you claimed that James required a evidential search first, but there is no reasonable reading of James that would allow that. In fact, much of what James wrote implies quite the opposite. He doesn't, for example, require that we read the Koran or consider the evidence for Islam before deciding it is dead.

6. You submit that James considers the "unrational" or "non-rational", though neither is an English word and no meaning can be ascribed to them. Nor could you provide a explanation of what you meant by either term.

7. You claim that James was only talking about the benefits in this world. I failed to find any such claim in James' essay.

8. You failed to understand that James completely missed an important point about Clifford. James talks about how we tend to believe, while Clifford talks about how we should believe. James failed to address this point, and so did you.

And that is just a partial list of the absurdities that you promoted on this thread. Oh, you administered a intellectual beating on this thread all right. Unfortunately for you, it was entirely self-inflicted.

luvluv

It actually kind of does, and this statement establishes that you have yet to do your homework. I was just kidding you in that other thread, I do that kind of thing with other atheists on this site all the time but you seem to be a little more sensitive than most, so I'll try to tone it down in the future.

My sense is you haven't put anymore work into this than before, and you're just posting out of anger, so I'm not going to get any more in depth with this than this post.

Again, I invite you to ask around. No properly-basic beliefs = no non-properly basic beliefs. If you have no reason to believe that your senses work, you've got no reason to believe that you're even talking to me now. And simply refusing to doubt does not equal justification, or else all Christians would be justified in their beliefs.

Unless Clifford modifies his system, it goes the way of logical positivism. You can't even get him off the ground.

I was not attempting a gotcha method, as I've explained before. Some of the questions I asked were actually RHETORICAL in intent, as I assumed you knew the answers to them otherwise you really had no business making the claims you were making.

In point of fact, you "gotcha-ed" yourself by coming into this discussion unprepared.

I'm sorry if you have a problem with this, but there's no nice way of saying to someone that they are totally misinformed and totally misunderstand the questions they are being asked. The fact that you think non-properly basic beliefs can trump basic beliefs by their sheer magnitude is illustrative of the problem. Ask around a little bit and see how many people familiar with epistemology will buy that.

If you're angry with me, put that anger into preparation and research and this conversation can get productive.

Family Man

Gee, you noticed I'm angry. Now, see if you can understand why and apologize sincerely or retract your statements about posting with class, especially considering the undeserved superior attitude you affect on your last post -- for which you are about to be mercilessly skewered.

And once again, you haven't properly read what I'm saying and are trying to change the subject. I'm not saying there are no properly basic beliefs. On the contrary, now that you've condescended to share your knowledge, I understand quite well and I agree that there are properly basic beliefs. Nowhere in Clifford is there any claims at all about properly basic beliefs, nor need there be if you think it through. All this means then, according to what you just said, there are non-properly basic beliefs (which Clifford does address). Since there are an infinite number of non-properly basic beliefs, but only a small finite number of properly basic beliefs, your point is correct but trivial. Why Clifford should have addressed such a unimportant point is unclear, but that's your problem not mine. Other than that, I see no reason why Clifford would have to change a thing -- but surely this time, if you feel you have a point, you could bother to explain to a person you admit is intelligent and interested without the asinine condescension. If you can't do that, I think everyone here can presume that you're blowing smoke, especially about posting with class.

To anticipate what is likely to be another irrelevant response, imagine that Clifford should be more properly formulated as: "With the exception of properly basic beliefs, no one should believe anything without strong evidential or rational reasons for doing so." Please explain the problem with the above statement. It appears to cover your latest objection.

Actually, since your point seems to be irrelevant, I don't think I was gotcha'ed at all (though I find the tactic you adopted abhorrent) since it appears to me to have boomeranged on you both on ettiquette and intellectual grounds. It appears to me that you completely misread both James and Clifford, as I demonstrated above, and you're trying to mask your mistake by bringing up an obscure philosophical point that isn't particularly relevant (and I have been reassured that you are blowing smoke here by those very same people you referred me to) . But if you care to explain yourself, I'll even do the indicated research if you can indicate its relevance. (What I'm trying to tell you is that I feel that I did research on Russell for a point that wasn't relevant, and I resent the imposition on my time.) Or is explaining yourself to those you obviously consider beneath you too much to ask?

Then you have no right to claim there is good evidence for Jesus's resurrection. Trust me on this one, it is my area of expertise. But unlike you, I wouldn't presume to exclude you from the conversation because you don't know historical methodology as well as I do. Tell you what, you defend the notion that there is good historical reasons to believe in the resurrection in BC&A, and I'll show you what it really means to post with class and without demanding that you have the same level of information that I do.


Finally, I think it is time you answered a question of mine. You claimed that James required a evidential search before applying his own criteria. You based your claim that the live criteria isn't arbitrary on that. But as I've demonstrated, there is no reasonable reading of James that allows for such a required search. Since you are unable to define it in a non-arbitrary way and your second line of defense seems to have failed, are you finally prepared to admit that it is arbitrary? If not, how do you defend it now? If yes, how do you defend James?

Finally, despite your transparent attempts to derail it, I think this conversation has been very productive. It's amazing how an underdog can point out mistakes that someone with [sarcasm]superior knowledge [/sarcasm] can make. Clifford makes a great deal of sense; it is James that appears to be impossible to defend.

Family Man

Now that I'm thinking about it again, I realize that there's another reason why the "required evidential search" is nonsense. Even if true, it wouldn't make the live option non-arbitrary.

Let's assume that you do your evidential research on Christianity and Islam and, to use Jamesian terminology, your "intellect isn't coerced" by either of them. But then you decide that Christianity is live but Islam is dead to you. It's still arbitrary. Sorry, luvluv, but your arguments are simply wrong.

Family Man

Now that this thread has run it's course (unless luvluv intends to take up the mantle again) I'd like to put in some concluding thoughts.

In essence, the disagreement here isn't whether evidential/rational arguments aren't valid means of deciding on the validity of beliefs, despite luvluv's bizarre foray into properly basic beliefs. James does not deny the efficacy of the scientific approach, which is a evidential/rational one. The question is whether the evidential/rational model is the only method that can be trusted to develop such (non-properly basic) beliefs.

I have argued in this thread that this is the case, for three reasons. The first is that James' criteria is inadequate to establish valid beliefs. This has been discussed to death, in the form of the arbitariness of the live criteria, so I'll say no more of that.

The second I've touched upon, but it hasn't been thoroughly explored. James makes the assumption that assuming a false belief has no negative consequences. That that is false, and obviously so. I may believe without evidence that the plane I clear for flying to be safe, and it may even be true (to use one of luvluv's phrases), but if it is not then I'm morally accountable for the deaths of those involved in the crash that resulted from my negligence. Similarly, Christianity may be true; on the other hand, it may be false with dire consequences. No one really knows. In essence, James made the same mistake that Pascal did in his famous wager: you can't reduce the options to either something good is going to happen or something neutral is. That isn't how the universe works.

Finally, it has to be understood that this is primarily a dispute over religion. At least James was up front about this when he said:

And that is the rub for luvluv, even if he denies it. Faced with the difficulty of providing evidence for the position that God exists, some strong believers react in varying ways. Some very intelligent people, such as William Lane Craig, deny the lack of evidence. Others, equally intelligent, such as James and luvluv, deny that evidence is necessary. However, if religion didn't exist, there would have been no essay named Will to Believe by famous philosopher William James. No one would seriously question the need to have strong evidential/rational reasons for believing propositions. This is why James' argument is, at heart, an Argument from Popularity. The need for justification came first; the reasoning, inadequate as it was, was an afterthought. Which only goes to show that very intelligent people can sometimes be very wrong.

Keith Russell

Family Man:

Do you recall the debates here a few months ago, where I asserted that beliefs can indeed by chosen? I explained that several of the theists I personally know (and others I have read about) have claimed that, despite a lack of evidence for 'God' and other religious claims) they wanted to believe, and in fact 'willed themselves' to believe.

Many atheists here claimed that one cannot choose one's belief.

Not that your reference proves me right, but at least it's another supporting voice.

Thanks,

K

Family Man

No, I didn't follow that thread, but I wouldn't read too much into it. For my own personal point of view, I have no choice but to be atheist as the evidence is insufficient to come to the conclusion that any god exists. Of course, in my opinion, you do have the right and the ability to ignore the evidence and choose to believe.

Pyrrho

Yes, obviously that is what James clearly states, though he does extend the idea to other areas as well.

It is funny that luvluv said:

If luvluv ever really believed this, I wonder why luvluv chose to start this thread in the section "Existence of God(s)" at II rather than "Philosophy"? Oops!