luvluv

Nice, S.P.

luvluv

Oh, really? Why does James say this, then:

And that's why you shouldn't try to ascertain what a world-class philosopher and psycholgist understands without actually READING his words. (And you shouldn't question William James, either )

The LIVE, criteria covers your complaint Jobar. James never advocates that we should attempt to believe what we do not find ourselves capable of believing.

Family Man

I see why this discussion is going nowhere too. Aside from your obnoxious condescension, we're not talking about "proof" -- we're talking about evidence. We're talking about when it is reasonable to believe, not when we can prove something is true. Like it our not, I may not be able to "prove" my memories reliable, but I don't recall ever claiming that I could (hint: you brought that up). All I'm claiming is that there is reasonable evidence that my memories are accurate and that there is reasonable evidence that there is an external world, not that I could prove it to the exacting standards you apparently apply to positions not related to your own. In the meantime, while I have to "prove" everything, all you want us to acknowledge is that it is "reasonable to decide to believe" in something that meet certain vague conditions set forth by a Famous Philosopher. Why is it that you are always raising the bar when discussing my position and lowering it when discussing yours?

And are you ever going to enlighten us on how one can rationally hold an irrational belief? Then you can tell us how black is white and war is peace while you're at it.

And exactly when are you going to get off your high horse and discuss the issues as presented and not these strange strawmen you've started building lately?

Family Man

Apparently, luvluv didn't read Clifford carefully either. In this thread, he kept hammering that if we wait until we enough evidence we are paralyzed. But that is an unfair representation of Clifford's position:

In other words, it is not required for us to firmly believe something before taking action. But it is incumbent upon us not to close off inquiry just because we chose an action. It also has the added benefit that, if someone is scrupulous in what he decides to believe, he is less likely to make the type of mistakes outlined in Clifford's essay.

And it appears to me that James, that vaunted philosopher, completely misread Clifford himself, as this passage (among others) reveals:

That isn't, of course, what Clifford was saying. Clifford spent a great deal of effort to outline when one should believe, and when one should not believe -- he never said believe nothing or to leave one in suspense. He said don't believe if you don't have enough evidence, a different thing entirely.

And:

As if Clifford demands that people be perfectly sure of anything!

So what is James alternative? Does he ever demonstrate when it is ok to disbelieve? Apparently, it is because certain options are dead. But when are they dead? Apropos to my original argument, that is completely arbitrary, as I saw no rigorous definition to the contrary. There is no standard. Believe what you want as long as it is non-trivial appears to be James' position. It is an incredibly sterile philosophy conjured up, judging from James' outrage that it may not be possible to believe in Christianity, to justify that belief.

And like luvluv, James fails to see how evidence works by positing a example that, upon contemplation, undermines his own position:

But why do the highwaymen believe they can count on each other? Because they have evidence, of course! Without a doubt, the highwaymen know each other. Have planned out the robbery together. Probably have had experience with the others at previous times, and thus have reason to believe the others are reliable. The passengers, on the other hand, have no such evidence and thus wisely decide it is better to be robbed than to count on others when they have no good reason to believe they can be counted on. Thus, when James follows up his example with:

It rings hollows because it is clear that the one group is acting because they do have evidence while the other group isn't because they don't, thus pointing to Clifford's theory, not his own!

In fact, after reading both essays I have to come to the conclusion that James fails to even address Clifford's argument because his discussion of it is a carciature of Clifford's point. I have to say I come away from this with a much lower opinion of James than when I went in.

I'll leave luvluv with this thought from Clifford:

And nothing James said really touches that.

Family Man

I would also strongly urge luvluv to read Burger's critique of James essay at the end of the link Secular Pinoy provided. I found it to be a devastating rebuttal to James' arguments.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K,
Incorrect. Your 'murdered by demon' example says nothing about theistic belief. Why? Because...
Person was killed by an bus
Person was killed by herd of rhinos
Person was killed by 7 drunk midgets in backhoe
...are all non-theistic and completely irrational.

Why is the belief 'Person killed by 7 drunk midgets in a backhoe' irrational? Because the evidence (knife sticking out of mans chest) in no way supports the idea. Simple as that.

What I am asking K, is how does...

-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.


...in no way support the idea of God's existence?


This is the question you must answer. Not 'murder by demons'.



A-Simply stating its incoherent doesn't make it incoherent.
B-The only thing you showed irrational was the strawman 'Murder by demons'...something I have never claimed.
C-We are not talking about 'all other aspects of life'...we are talking precisely about this aspect of my(not your) life.
D-No one is 'roping off one kind of belief' K. The evidence either supports the hypothesis God exists...or it doesn't.








And you change your position every time!

Your first 'answer' wasn't even responding to my question...
Your second 'answer' was you stating your belief...not mine:

Your third answer: you simply state my belief is incoherent, but don't say why it is...
Your fourth 'answer' is a strawman...you respond to something I never said...

Your fifth and current 'answer' is claiming that you have answered my question...but that I'm dodging the 'thrust' of your answers.



If we are to have a rational conversation K...you must show how and why the evidence I listed (again) above does not support the belief 'God exists'.

We are not talking about your feelings that theistic belief is irrational because <insert your own reason>

We are not talking about you first assuming the supernatural doesn't exist (because it's not needed in other areas of your life) and then claiming my belief is 'incoherent' because it requires the supernatural. This has nothing to do with analyzing the evidence...which is what I keep asking you to do.


In simple terms K, either address the evidence or concede that my (not your) belief in God is rational.



Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K

SOMMS:

You have asked why your belief is incoherent. I have answered. You have ignored my answer. Instead you've tried to focus on examples I've given that I did not claim were your beliefs. They were only meant illustrate why supernatural explanations are not normally considered rational. I offered them because you are obviously too close to you own belief to see it as a supernatural explanation for natural phenomena. I apologize if that was too confusing to follow. In the future I try to avoid similar problem.

Now, since you seemed to remember to comment on everything I've posted to you except my answers, I'll post it again. I don't think I can make it any more direct than this.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K,
In the same sense that 'Blue' answers the question 'How many planets are in our solar system?' I feel like your summary is a bit unrepresentative of our conversation up to this point.


Well this sounds like you are assuming your conclusion for me K.

If so, then you are absolutely (tautologically) correct: If one's position is that God cannot exist (or does not)...then evidence can never support the proposition that God does exist. This is a perfectly fine thing for you to do if you wish to do so.


However, what I am asking you is about my belief. I do not assume that God can not/does not exist. I assume that God's existence is a possiblity. I was under the impression that you would take this into consideration.


In short K, when I ask you 'Does this evidence support God belief?' your response seems to be 'God can't exist' instead of discussing the relationship between the evidence and my belief.


So maybe I will rephrase my question one last time: Given that I (not you) consider God's existence a possiblity...is my God belief irrational given the above evidence?


Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K,
What do you mean by 'supernatural'?

What do you mean by 'allow them only for theistic beliefs'?


Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K

SOMMS:

I mean that whenever we observe something that we don't completely understand (gravity or the placebo effect for instance), is it rational to assume that unseen supernatural entities are causing the observed effects?

If not, then how is it to coherent to propose a supernatural explanation for one small set of observations (your personal evidence for theism), while at the same time rejecting them for all others?


[Edited to say:]
Oops. You asked for the definition of supernatural. Supernatural entities exist outside of nature (I guess that means that they are beings or 'forces' that aren't subject to the laws of nature).