Gurdur

Why surprised ? It is the majority opinion among the scientific and genuine academic philosophical world in practice, after all.

Oh darn, since it wasn't my post that Roger responded to, my ego takes a tumble. Still, onwards.
Oh gosh, puh-leeeeze; the problem is not that there is no evidence (something, which only at the very end I agree with), but the fact that people will happily and busily interpret anything and everything that comes their way as evidence for favoured beliefs.
For example, the Catholic Church has a large degree of natural theology in its lexicon, meaning they think all the physical evidence is on their side; now you or I may wholeheartedly disagree with the Catholic Church, but the problem remains that it's their interpretation, not the putative absence of evidence.
While I agree with your very last point, and it was in fact my point, albeit subtlely made, there are two things wrong with your whole statement:
1) I've known theists without doubt at all, and they weren't necessarily scientifically-challenged at all

2) this completely undermines your own stance, which I take to be a determinist one, since by your own admission people are choosing beliefs despite doubt for the sake of other rewards.

Gurdur

And I've more than answered your question, as well as giving you additional information, so how about rather taking my words at face value and answering them ?
hmmm ?

Depends.
You might call leaving a saucer of milk on the doorstep for the Wee Folk a serious consequence; it is and it it isn't, depending from which angle you look at it.

Man, you're contradicting yourself, as well as once again misrepresenting me, which I'm none too happy about.
I've known people who did join groups, because of either other members or the group's central premise, then slowly worked their way through the list of ancillary beliefs, adopting or rejecting ancillary beliefs willy-nilly.
Such examples include Catholics, atheists, and socialists.
I am getting very unhappy with this. I take great care with the precision of my language for posts like these, and I'ld like it if the precision was acknowledged at face value.

What the hell do you think I'm talking about ?
I've personally known people who believed in fairies, the Wee Folk, spirits, ghosts, banshees, compassionate conservatism, historically-justified Libertarianism, the innate goodness of Howard and The Liberals' death-metal rock band, the innate greatness of Ché Guevara, the possibility of Anarchism, winning the Lottery tomorrow, and elves.

Would you mind actually adressing what I say, rather than what you demand I be saying, please ?
It would save us both time.

excreationist

Gurdur:
Actually, in my own experience, people can choose to genuinely believe in things which they have no compelling reason not to believe in, i.e. people can choose to genuinely believe in things which they have no compelling reason to disbelieve, a vital difference.

"I agree. But as I said, "the question is whether they can choose to genuinely believe in things which they have no compelling reason to." (this includes emotional reasons)"

And I've more than answered your question, as well as giving you additional information, so how about rather taking my words at face value and answering them ?
hmmm ?
Where did you answer my question within that above quote (your post, then my reply, then your reply)?
At the beginning of those quotes you are talking about people "believing in things which they have no compelling reason to disbelieve"... this is different from my question which is about people "believing in things which they have no compelling reason to believe".
You did talk about people believing in new things after they became part of a group but as I said, this would be for compelling emotional reasons - since they want to trust the group and belong, etc.

"...I agree. Maybe the consequences of having a belief in fairies and elves isn't very serious so perhaps it should be easier to adopt..."
-------------------------------
Depends.
You might call leaving a saucer of milk on the doorstep for the Wee Folk a serious consequence; it is and it it isn't, depending from which angle you look at it.
Then perhaps believing in reclusive elves wouldn't have very serious consequences... I just brought that up because you said "The more remote and distant the actual pressing consequences of any particular belief in practical terms are, the easier many people find it to accept it or drop it"

Man, you're contradicting yourself,
Well earlier I was saying that we can't arbitrary adopt genuine beliefs - we need sufficient evidence - which can include "wishful thinking" where a belief helps bring peace of mind to someone's worldview. (I know I worded it differently before)
Later I said that people can choose their beliefs... by that I guess I was meaning that people can have beliefs that aren't totally rational... though they would still be motivated by an emotional craving - probably for security/coherence/justice (part of the "connectedness" desire). So those irrational beliefs wouldn't be arbitrary since they would depend on the emotional need being there.
So now I think I didn't actually contradict myself (though I thought I did earlier...). BTW, whenever I re-evaluate what I've written, I try to be open to change, so sometimes I do change my stance on things... but I think in this thread it has been about the same although when the discussion gets complex I might get confused.

as well as once again misrepresenting me, which I'm none too happy about.
I just paraphrase what you're saying to help me comprehend it... sometimes this simplification process can cause me to leave out important parts.

I've known people who did join groups, because of either other members or the group's central premise, then slowly worked their way through the list of ancillary beliefs, adopting or rejecting ancillary beliefs willy-nilly.
Such examples include Catholics, atheists, and socialists.
Yeah, that's what I've been saying (basically - if you nit-pick there are probably some differences).

"In those examples you are just believing in their existence within hypothetical alternate realities... but I'm talking about whether you can genuinely believe in fairies and elves in this current everyday reality."
-------------------------------
I am getting very unhappy with this. I take great care with the precision of my language for posts like these, and I'ld like it if the precision was acknowledged at face value.
That part you quoted was what I quoted in my last post... I have put what I've quoted from you in bold, and what I've quoted from myself in bold italics... that was in bold italics because it preceeded your quote... I didn't intend in to be my latest reply. My latest reply was in normal print -

"Ok I agree with your statement
"and in fact to some *tiny degree* I do every time I willingly suspend disbelief for the sake of a good read of a work of fiction, or some great musical lyrics" (emphasis added)"

What the hell do you think I'm talking about ?
I've personally known people who believed in fairies, the Wee Folk, spirits, ghosts, banshees, compassionate conservatism, historically-justified Libertarianism, the innate goodness of Howard and The Liberals' death-metal rock band, the innate greatness of Ché Guevara, the possibility of Anarchism, winning the Lottery tomorrow, and elves.
I'd say that "evidence" has led them down those paths. I think if you asked them they'd probably have some kind of justification for their beliefs - i.e. evidence - even if it involves fallacious reasoning. Or it would just be a case of wishful thinking. i.e. "it just has to be true!"

Would you mind actually adressing what I say, rather than what you demand I be saying, please ?
It would save us both time.
Well I've been writing a reply to every sentence you've been writing... I don't know what you mean by "addressing what you're saying"... perhaps you don't like me going off on tangents so much. Perhaps you could be more specific about what you're looking for. Note that I'm not perfect.

Jamie_L

On irrational people:

I don't think my position on this has much to do with whether or not someone is rational. An irrational person may interpret the world in a dramatically different way from a rational person. They may place weight on pieces of information with little good reason. HOWEVER, they still come to conclusions based on all this bad information. In that respect, their belief is formed just like a rational person's: based on what makes sense to them. What makes sense may change from minute to minute based on whimsical interpretations of events, but that isn't the same as "choosing" a different belief.

On membership beliefs:
People may join a group just to feel accepted. They may "pick and choose" among that group's beliefs. But why are they picking and choosing? Because some of those beliefs make sense, and others don't. Such a person clearly doesn't have a strong will or critical mind for beliefs. The qualifier for "what makes sense" may be as simple as: these people I want to hang out with believe it, so it probably has merit.

In some sense, such people may be choosing these beliefs, but at the same time these people are not coming to true belief. They have little concern for the truth of the matter. At some later time their acceptance of these things may become a belief, but at that point they have come to develop a belief in the truth of the things that they choose at first only to accept as part of the group membership.

Jamie

Amos

People who don't know anything must believe everything they hold to be true.

The difference between what we believe and what we know is experience through which the data we first believed is tied down into reality.

So yes, adults can believe in santa claus.

Jamie_L

This reminds me of the kinds of things addicts say:

"I can stop any time I want. I just don't want to."

Which is not so say this has anything to do with addiction. But it's one thing to say "Oh I could do that." Another to actually be able to do it. If you honestly find no truth to the existence of something, you're not going to be able to just disregard that belief.

Jamie

AtlanticCitySlave

I think beliefs can be chosen, although I think overall we don't choose our beliefs, but rather just come to accept them through experience, reasoning, etc. It's very hard to convince yourself to believe something that you know goes against all the evidence, such as choosing to believe it's warm in the north and south poles. However, I do know many people who say they choose to believe in God, even though they admit they don't have any good reasons for such a belief.

Gurdur

So far, so good --- pity you take such a tumble with your next sentence.

Amazing.
Just how do you deduce this ?

And in the examples I gave, the only initial merit accorded to those ancillary beliefs is that they were held by the group, but the chooser still then adopts, discards or rejects the ancillary beliefs as per the chooser.

Oh dear.
A No True Scotsman fallacy.

Naw, it's simply in many cases that they believe the matter to be not terribly pressing in terms of immediate consquentiality.

For example, I am completely agnostic on the question of whether there is life on a planet circlin´g one particular star 30 light years away --- I have no concern for the truth of that particular matter, since it seems to make no difference at all either way.

Which was my point, and still ignores the ancillary beliefs they reject.

Keith Russell

Jamie said:
On irrational people:

I don't think my position on this has much to do with whether or not someone is rational. An irrational person may interpret the world in a dramatically different way from a rational person. They may place weight on pieces of information with little good reason. HOWEVER, they still come to conclusions based on all this bad information. In that respect, their belief is formed just like a rational person's: based on what makes sense to them. What makes sense may change from minute to minute based on whimsical interpretations of events, but that isn't the same as "choosing" a different belief.

[b]You leave yourself no way to differentiate between rationally held beliefs, and irrationally held beliefs. Reason requires work, it requires conscious thought--volitional attention to perceptual data.

We don't simply absorb stimuli, and process it according to preset mechanisms, with no way to tell whether those mechanisms are properly functioning or not.

If that were true, you would be right: we would be rational only if and when our 'preset mechanisms' were working correctly. Otherwise, even when acting on incorrect data, and our actions--though irrational--it would not be our fault. We would have acted as best we could, given that we had no way to tell that the data provided was being distorted by our defective consciousness.

But we do have a way to tell. Reason, for a healthy adult human being, is self-validating. If we make an error, there are ways to detect, and correct, that error. We have five senses, which work together to help us understand when the data provided by one or two of the senses seems distorted or incorrect.

It takes effort to remain focused, to remain committed to continually exmining one's mind (and sensory perceptions) for contradictions and inconsistencies. It requires a continually active mind to keep going over what one thinks one knows, in order to see if there really is valid evidence supporting what one believes.

I think many people prefer to avoid this effort. This in no way means that they are 'doing their best', but are thwarted by faulty data.

It means that they have chosen not to process the data they receive. It means they have made the choice not to evaluate claims critically. It means that they decided 'not to bother'.

Even if they are irrational 'by default', they still had (and have) the option of at any time choosing not to be.

This is the difference between reason and irrationality, and it is a vast--and radical--difference.

Keith.

[ August 22, 2002: Message edited by: Keith Russell ]</p>

Jamie_L

Keith:
Of course people choose whether or not to use their reasoning. A person who chooses not to may come to a belief in an irrational manner. That doesn't mean they chose that belief. They just chose not to be rational about it.

Gurdur:
I still say people believe what makes sense to them, and they can't choose to have something make sense to them if it doesn't. Belonging to a group may make certain propositions make sense, while not being a strong enough motivator to cause other things to make sense. Thus, the person adopts some beliefs and not others.

Jamie