luvluv

There is a distinction that I am having trouble communicating to you.

There is a particular belief system (polythiesm, monotheism, Christianity, Islam, etc.).

Then there is the decision to risk believing in a particular belief system.

James' formula has nothing to do with determining the truth, falsehood, rationality, or irrationality of a particular belief system.

It deals solely with the decision to believe in a particular belief system.

He simply says that it is irrational to wait for evidence to decide momentous propositions for which compulsive evidence is not forthcoming any time soon. Therefore it is rational to believe in any belief system that for the individual is live, momentous, and forced rather than to withhold the belief when it is unlikely that one will ever have access to the necessary evidence.

James formula can indeed be used to justify the decision to believe in a particular belief system, but it cannot and was never intended to justify the belief system itself.

Is that distinction clearer now? I ask this because the counter examples you state are totally irrelavent to James' process.

Basically, yes.

K

luvluv:

The distinction is clear, but totally irrelevant, since (until you introduced the evidence criterion) it says that it is rational to believe anything that the believer finds momentous, forced, and live. As I've shown, there are horrendously irrational beliefs that meet these criteria. So what does it mean to say that it is rational to believe absurdly irrational things? What does that do to the meaning of the word 'rational'? Does that leave any belief that could be considered irrational?

I know you are now talking about evidence being the first line of defense, which is what I've maintained all along. Evidence is the foundation of any rational belief. If the evidence shows that it is as likely that the Christian God exists as not, James' formula would apply. But then this whole argument goes back to the atheist's position that belief in God requires evidence that God is at least as likely to exist as not exist. James' formula is only for a situation that only a remote few atheists (if any) believe exists.

K

SOMMS:

That's what I (and other atheists) have said all along. Evidence is what is needed to make the belief rational. Now where you and atheists diverge is on the quality of your evidence which is another thing that I (and other atheists) have maintained from the beginning.

James' excercise has not circumvented the need for evidence in rational beliefs.

Maybe you don't really find any of your religion live. Berkowitz may not have considered any of it live, but I don't think you can dismiss a whole category of counterexamples so easily.

Are you kidding? Hitler believed he was chosen as the leader of the master race. He believed it was his destiny to create a Thousand Year Reich as the leader of an Aryan world. That's a whole lot of precursive faith.

No, that's exactly the point. Here are these homocidal maniacs whose beliefs are justified by James' formula. What would eliminate these beliefs from being rationally justified? - Evidence. My point all along has been that James' formula can not determine which beliefs are rational. Only evidence can do that.

The psychotic killers are an important point. You gave a formula for determining rational beliefs. I used that formula to justify the beliefs of psychotic killers. You are then forced to either agree that the formula is flawed, or to defend the rationality of the psychotic killers. By using people whose beliefs we both consider irrational, I've provided a counterexample that invalidates your formula.

It's not if you have real evidence. I haven't seen anyone who has had any real evidence for the supernatural - but I'd be willing to listen to what you've got - in another thread.

By the way, do you consider the beliefs of Scientologists irrational? If so, why?

Family Man

Luvluv

It is better because it avoids this problem:

An arbitrary decision is one that is based on one's personal preference. That is what arbitrary means. And if it is arbitrary -- i.e. based on one's preference and not on an acknowledged standard -- then the live standard becomes valueless.

But clearly, you don't feel it is arbitrary, as indicated by:

But that sounds like the pressures of your faith and society. In other words, it is the popular position, which is why I think this whole "live" option comes down to a Argument from Popularity.

In other words, unless you can provide a definition of "live" that isn't arbitary or doesn't rely on the popularity of belief being justified, the argument is worthless.

BTW:
That's because we follow Clifford's notion that something shouldn't be believed unless sufficient evidence exists for it, and not because we arbitarily decide that something is "live" for us or because society pressures us into believing it.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K,
?

James essay was upon justification of precursive faith. It wasn't about 'circumventing the need for evidence'.


Uh...this is turning out to be an apples/oranges thing K. You yourself said he just'...believed he was...the leader of the master race.' I don't see the issue of faith here K. In your words...what exactly was the issue that Hitler found live, forced and momentous?


But your wrong here K...you've dug your own grave by introducing insanity as your example.

Evidence would not changed a thing in the above matters. Berkowitz had 'evidence' that a 2000 year old dog was ordering him to kill. And even though I don't agree the Holocaust was an issue of precursive faith Hitler could of had 'evidence' that he was indeed the leader of the master race.


This is my whole point...all bets are off when it comes to the 'rationale' of a insane persons mind.



Not at all. I was thinking about your argument last night and it finally occurred to me...succintly...why I disagree with you.

Your argument is this: Insane people can think anything is live.

The problem with this is: we aren't talking about insane people.




Moreover, all bets are off when talking about insane people...even using evidence. Insane people can interpret their delusions as evidence for their psychosis. Thus they have evidence for what they believe. I'm sure you'd agree with this situation.



Ok...this is a start. You mean evidence I think is 'real' correct?



Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K

SOMMS:

From the OP:

"There are things that are true that we do not have evidence for, and it is further possible that there are things for which there is no evidence (or at least, no evidence available to us) and are nonetheless true. If it be possible to gain from knowing such truths presently, and in this lifetime, James' believes it is absolute insanity to forbid their belief."

1. That the Aryan race was the master race.

2. That he was chosen to rid the world of the Jews.

3. That he was destined to start a thousand year Aryan nation.

Do you want more?

This is incorrect. Requiring evidence doesn't just mean that the person with the belief sees the evidence. Anyone else should also be able to see the same evidence. This allows us to tell when someone is behaving irrationally - there is no substantial evidence for a 2000 year old dog ordering people to kill.

Contrast that with James' formula. It doesn't provide a method for determining irrational or insane beliefs since it considers any belief rational as long as the individual finds it momentous, forced, and live.

Not true. Evidence must be real - not just in somebodies mind. It should be available for anyone else to evaluate. This is something James doesn't require.

No, I mean real evidence. Evidence that anyone can examine and evaluate.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K,

True. But these seem more like issues of racism...not issues of precursive faith. For example, believing that the Aryan race was the 'master' race is a prejudice. This is not an issue where Hitler had to sit down, contemplate what was at hand, ask a 'yes' or 'no' question and make a decision. He simply felt Germans were better than everybody.

Saying 'That he was chosen to rid the world of the Jews' is just a euphimism for 'he wanted to get rid of the Jews'. This again was prejudice...not some mystery that he had to sit down, make a 'yes' or 'no' decision then act upon that decision. He simply wanted a common enemy so he could unify Germany.

Lastly, that Hitler felt he was 'destined to start a thousand year Aryan nation' is more indicative of Hitlers vision and depth of hatred than a 'I'm stepping out in faith on this issue' decision.


I guess what it comes down to K is this: the Holocaust was an issue of racism...not precursive faith. It doesn't matter how you spin it...it will still be an issue of racism. Perhaps we can just agree to disagree and move on.



Right...and what if your insanity includes the delusion that objective evidence exists but others won't acknowledge it?
This is the exact case of paranoia...evidence of conspiracy is everywhere. This is an insanity that (relative to the person with the disease) has reams of evidence.

Or better yet...what if the insanity includes delusions of others corraborating the evidence and/or even presenting evidence of their own? (delusional schizophrenia)


In both of these cases evidence doesn't help the victim determine what's fake from what's real.


Which leads to what I've been saying all along...it is completely meaningless to talk about beliefs of the insane as insane people can find anything live.







I see. So I shouldn't believe any personal evidence that I have...is this correct?



Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K

SOMMS:

This was something Hitler believed (it was live to him), he considered it his mission in life (it was momentous to him), to act on this required him to make a decision in his lifetime (it was forced). Therefore, by James' own definition, this is precursive faith.

No, he actually believed that he had been forseen by Nostradamus - that it was his destiny to lead this Aryan nation to victory.

Again, he thought this was his destiny.

It doesn't matter how you spin it. It is precursive faith by the very definition provided in this thread. But we will have to agree to disagree.

Exactly! That's why the evidence has a clear advantage over precursive faith. Evidence can be evaluated by others. That is the very method we use to determine if somebody is behaving rationally or suffering from delusions.

James' formula doesn't allow similar evaluation. If the belief is momentous, forced, and live for the individual, then that individual is rational for believing it.

This is exactly what I'm talking about with religion - not insanity, just a group perpetuated delusion.

No, but it does help society determine which indviduals are behaving rationally and which are suffering from mental illness.

How exactly do you determine insanity if you don't use evidence? James' certainly doesn't give a method. By his formula, David Berkowitz was sane. The only reason we can say that Berkowitz was psychotic is because there is no evidence that 2000 year old dogs command people to kill.

That depends on what you mean by personal evidence. Is it evidence that impartial people could evaluate objectively had they been there. Sure you should believe that (until there is evidence to suggest that your reasoning faculties aren't working correctly).

Give me an example of personal evidence, and we can discuss whether or not it should be considered reliable. A good test would be to ask yourself if similar evidence presented by somebody else supporting a belief other than yours would be convincing to you. If not, your evidence is probably not reliable. Testability and repeatability are also usually indicators of good evidence.

PopeInTheWoods

If you're talking about the benefits of god-belief to the population in general, then I have a serious problem with your assertion. How do you account for the myriad ex-theists (such as those in the "Atheist testimony" thread ) and non-theists of all stripes who also seem privvy to the "peace, purpose, understanding, etc." that supposedly arises from theism? Or who don't suffer from the "existential angst"? Or who have wonderful relationships with those around them? Or who benefit "in this world" from holding onto that 10% of their income, being less likely to be molested by priests, and getting to watch those East coast NFL games while living in Seattle?

If you mean the benefit of being able to deal with a harsh existence, letting the believer ignore his problems or feel important or superior, I might tend to agree with you. But then that equates religion to any number of escapist behaviors (alcohol abuse, etc.) or bizarre (Anne Murray secretly expresses her exclusive love for you on her albums) or harmful (such as the oft-metioned 1930's German citizen promoting Hitler's racial claptrap) beliefs.

Maybe I could go along with the "in this world" benefits of activity associated with certain beliefs, such as group services that produce a powerful feeling of "god-presence", or having the supportive fellowship of like-minded believers. But then the same argument could be made in favor of many other beliefs (Nazi Germany again).

In short, I see a lot of assertion, equivocation, and special pleading, and precious little evidence, that religious belief can provide "in this world" benefits that other beliefs cannot.

Andy

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K,

I think you missed what I was saying here K. Check it out:

I have clothes on. I see that I have clothes on. This is objective evidence. I am delusional. However, my delusion is that everybody I meet says that I am naked. In this case...evidence (which happens to be true) is not helping me determine that my belief that I have clothes on is rational.


Here is another. I am delusional. I think I have an alien on my shoulder. My delusion includes that other people see I have an alien on my shoulder. I interpret this as objective evidence. In this case...evidence (which happens to be false) is not helping me determine that my beliefe that I have an alien on my shoulder is irrational.


Do you see what I am saying here? It's like as soon as you start talking about the insane...rationality, belief and evidence all fly out the window. It's tilting at windmills K.





Certainly. If they experienced what I have they would most likely come to the same conclusion.


Sure. Here's some:

-The marked and verifiable prosperity in my life where before there was none. In terms of finances, health, friends, family, education, career and physical, mental and social achievement. One could draw a line on the calendar accurate to within probably 2 months of when I drew close to God.

-Large amounts of answered prayer. Some of the more notable: Father dying on hospital table and being the only student to finish a 3 day/3 night coding challenge.

-A definite, noticable sense of peace...whereas before there was none. Others (non Christian) have noticed this.

-A definite, noticable sense of happiness...whereas before there was none. Others (non Christian) have noticed this.

-A noticable sense of strength. I can do things I could not do before. Public speaking and workload to name a few.

-When I pray I feel God's presence.

-When I listen closely, at times I can hear God's voice.



Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas