Are we ever justified in believing p without sufficient evidence for p?

GrowingSmaller said:

God, the "designer" is argued for by analogy. There are a few other examples, like the "highest good" too. What's wrong with this?

Click to expand...

The analogy fails because we don't regard design merely based on what seems as such, but what we can observe as such consistently. Nature does not require a mind behind it for us to make sense of the structures, but that understanding of the "design" is from a human model of making sense of nature, not something inherent to nature itself.

Engineering and architecture necessarily require a mind behind the products created and that is common understanding, we don't get to make the leap in logic from the world in the natural sense being amazing to it needing to have a mind behind it in the way we would do so with an amazing work of art, a building, etc, because we understand one as necessarily requiring such things, while the other has no evidence to suggest it comes about by a mind except by conflating our human observation with the ontological nature of what is observed in itself

And the highest good is an unrealistic and subjective standard in the same vein as any variation on the ontological argument, because it basically becomes tautological or circular, saying something must exist because we cannot help but imagine it as such, which is also demonstrably false in the broadest sense of the divine as humans conceive of it across worldviews.

The more I read it the more I get the sense that Clifford's maxim is one of those ideas that can only really exist in theory or in some very narrow context.

Click to expand...

If you can demonstrate more than a mere exception to the principle based on a consideration that is based on very particular things that aren't going to fall under the same notions as metaphysics, ethics and the like, but things that are necessarily going to be less precise given our knowledge can be limited, like in medical science for spontaneous remission of cancer, etc, then perhaps the principle isn't merely theoretical or as narrow as you seem to think it is with little justification beyond trying to poke holes in it rooted in a fundamentally skewed understanding or a bias against skepticism except in a narrowed constraint that's barely skepticism

I do occasionally get the impression in some exchanges here that it is possible to be so convinced of an idea it all its fullness and internal consistency that a person can become incapable of seeing any real-world, experiential, challenges to it as having any validity, because they don't meet the criteria of 'the idea'.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that tends to happen with those believing in God based on faulty foundational reasoning and rationalization, not impossible to be reflected in someone who regards science as absolute, which is also a false notion in terms of how it generally is characterized.

When supernatural concepts are presented to me, I'm not obligated to take them as possible unless there is a reasonable consideration that they fit into a remotely consistent system of some sort, even if it may not be understood by science. But prayer, magic, ghosts, God, all these things effectively either change the rules by context or otherwise make it so any kind of scientific investigation is fundamentally impossible, making it unfalsifiable on its face either way.

I'm not resistant to the idea of such things being true, I'm not convinced based on people's attempts to demonstrate them that they are the case and hold a strict standard to have someone present the most accurate representation of what they think is part of reality and would expect the same of any other idea in regards to what are more foundational and axiomatic ideas (other minds, the independent existence of the world outside our perception, etc)

variant said:

Yeah well that doesn't mean anything for the rest of us. "there is a light switch there if you believe there is". Is unhelpful.

Click to expand...

You atheists will be arguing faith is just a brainswitch next...?

GrowingSmaller said:

You atheists will be arguing faith is just a brainswitch next...?

Click to expand...

I don't see how you reach that conclusion. Saying, "You will find X if you believe in X" doesn't suggest that.

GrowingSmaller said:

You atheists will be arguing faith is just a brainswitch next...?

Click to expand...

On the contrary, your terrible analogy was what we were discussing. The one where you compared the search for religious truth to finding a light switch on the wall in the dark.

So, only one of us has really made that comparison.

GrowingSmaller said:

You atheists will be arguing faith is just a brainswitch next...?

Click to expand...

Faith is arguably more a malfunction in the brain, I'd say, even though I'll admit from the start I'm not a neurologist to any extent. Faith is someone rationalizing a belief held in spite of evidence to the contrary by saying that their experiences are sufficient in spite of contradicting testimonies from others in regards to a similar aspect (a mystical or spiritual vision, etc).

Kylie said:

I don't see how you reach that conclusion. Saying, "You will find X if you believe in X" doesn't suggest that.

Click to expand...

Ok that's fair from the outside. I think from the inside, from a believers perspective, or for me at least, faith is something of an aesthetic or perceptual attitude - a way of perceiving as creation, rather than as plenum.

Its not just self reinforcing belief, theism opens up a new modality of experience with benefits. Its a new manner of "disclosure" or "alethea" (truth of reality) - like for instance, where Heidegger argues a technological attitude discloses things differently from a poetic one (i.e. as mere "stuff" to be measured, used and exploited), I think the atheist and theistic encounters with reality are of a different kind.

Its an alternative existential disclosure mechanism. Not just an alternative propositional attitude towards the sentence "God exists"...

IIRC faith is related to social areas of the brain. IMO this is not just a brain tragedy, it can help people like me who have little social and emotional direction, "plug in" to a more fine tuned emotional, or even spiritual, version of reality.

In contrast, atheism was (for me, I'm not generalising) more emotionally barren, whereas theism is more sensitised. IICR Husserl the phenomenologist said that the idea the universe is a materialistic plenum, doesn't do proper justice to the personalistic side of reality - i.e. that we are conscious agents with emotions and direction in life. He called the first the naturalistic attitude, and the latter the personalistic attitude.

Next, I'd speculate atheists slightly higher IQ may be an artefact of their processing mode - more thinking rather than feeling orientated.

So I think there is probably a feedback loop in the brain. Personal feelings - if youre one of the faithful - are also processed by including the "God areas" in the brain in a alternative way. End result, another perspective on reality.

For instance, believing we have "gods spirit" in us is one candidate. For a Christian, ones personal "crosses" are understood through a more theistic lens. The definition on God supports or interacts with the idea of self.

Across cultures there seems to be a trend in faiths to have a concept and even "psychological witness" (however valid) to higher and lower ends of the psychological spectrum. The soul belonging to the higher end, and the "basic appetites" being the lower self.

Being ensouled seems to be an option, to be accepted or rejected. Belief in the God-soul-creation (etc.) complex, presents itself as valid from the inside. Invalid from the outside.

The point is its more than belief, equivalent to everyday beliefs, its a whole different way of processing reality, some of it consciously, and some unconsciously.

Even though we're in the same room for example, the "route taken" (i.e. unconscious process being atheistic or theistic) determines the phenomenology. For instance, as mentioned, 'seeing' as creation rather than as plenum.

Now, this isn't objective evidence for Gods existence. Scientists may say its a coping mechanism. But that's science, it sets its limits and stays there.

Adopting Faith? Its more like trans-world teleportation. Untestable, but significant all the same.

To the modern mind: Forget energy drinks, forget drugs... faith will give you wings!

GrowingSmaller said:

Ok that's fair from the outside. I think from the inside, from a believers perspective, or for me at least, faith is something of an aesthetic or perceptual attitude - a way of perceiving as creation, rather than as plenum.

Its not just self reinforcing belief, theism opens up a new modality of experience with benefits.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure that atheists don't have these experiences. They just (by definition) don't believe they're coming from god(s).

So while one possibility is all of this stuff about it being an alternative path to reality only available to theists, another is that it is just believers mistaking random quirks brain chemistry as a useful path for determining facts about reality.

Next, I'd speculate atheists slightly higher IQ may be an artefact of their processing mode - more thinking rather than feeling orientated.

Click to expand...

I don't see any reason to believe that atheists don't use feelings when processing the world around them. Perhaps they're just better at not confusing feelings with objective facts about the world around them - e.g. not mistakenly expanding their utility from "what am I and others feeling" to "I really feel the universe had to be magically created from scratch by a more powerful version of me".

Across cultures there seems to be a trend in faiths to have a concept and even "psychological witness" (however valid) to higher and lower ends of the psychological spectrum. The soul belonging to the higher end, and the "basic appetites" being the lower self.

Click to expand...

Sure, but compare faiths to fields more successful at generating useful working models of reality - medicine, physics and so on. Those have sidestepped the idea of the soul as useless towards producing good descriptions of what happens around us. So while faiths may try to market their version of believing as "higher" than others, what basis do they have for doing so?

KCfromNC said:

Sure, but compare faiths to fields more successful at generating useful working models of reality - medicine, physics and so on. Those have sidestepped the idea of the soul as useless towards producing good descriptions of what happens around us. So while faiths may try to market their version of believing as "higher" than others, what basis do they have for doing so?

Click to expand...

You're missing the point.

Truth, or a good description is not the point, utility is.

Utility is the definitely still the end goal, but the utility of religious ideas is to get people to believe and spread them.

To that end, the point about actually demonstrating the ideas in question is actually harmful to the ideas, when they can be looked into to remove doubt, they would have to ultimately be both true and something we could investigate.

Since the ideas are not both true and something we can actually investigate, we replace demonstration with "faith", the idea that something should be believed without a proper demonstration or even the ability to know what one would really look like.

The proof of this idea is that people will indeed believe without any real demonstration. That's the point. One flaw in human thinking is that we should employ such sloppy thinking in general, the other is your flaw, that we should employ human idealism to the messy reality of how humans actually think.

You are appealing to a different standard than the person you appeal to actually holds, and so long as that is true they will never believe you.

All the rest of this nonsense of trying to compare how people think religiously, with how people think when they actually want to find out some sort of truth is just that, nonsense, and not the point. It is quite pretentious too.

variant said:

You're missing the point.

Truth, or a good description is not the point, utility is.

Utility is the definitely still the end goal, but the utility of religious ideas is to get people to believe and spread them.

To that end, the point about actually demonstrating the ideas in question is actually harmful to the ideas, when they can be looked into to remove doubt, they would have to ultimately be both true and something we could investigate.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I guess that's one way to look at it. Ties in with the idea of implying non-believers are somehow defective because they don't appreciate the emperor's new clothes as much as the in-crowd, I guess.

public hermit said:

It is wrong

Click to expand...

The question of "Is it wrong?" presents a false dichotomy as there is way more nuance to this topic. If we examine human beliefs, what we might find is that the reasoning behind why we believe what we believe has a lot more to do with finding comfort than finding truth. We search to find satisfaction and oftentimes a satisfactory answer and a true answer can be at odds. We tend to cherry pick, apply confirmation bias, seek out information from our own echo-chambers, etc. in hopes of what? Are we really concerned with true or is there something we seek out that we value a lot more..................

Atheists, what do you think of the label "atheo-landers"?

The idea is you live in an atheistic world, or physical land. Subjectively it is reality. But there are alternative realities one can access, depending on ones axioms and beliefs etc.

I'm trying to loosen up the discussion a bit, and make it a little more like fantasy adventure.

It seems like we're all stuck on replay. "Evidence..." "Not good enough" etc.

Atheo-landers see the land, but not the god.

"Look, its a piece of land, and that's all we know of...." is a basic caricature of the atheist perspective.

The ultimate reality is hidden, so various perspectives are possible - it may even turn out that atheism is the most unreal come judgement day.

So, life can be an adventure, and serious minded clinging to a world, like Buddhists say, can be delusional. Rather we can "teleport" or "enter into" various self consistent domains or milieux.

It seems like a people dedicated to the relentless march of reason, which atheists proclaim, could come straight out of a fantasy novel. All of us included - not simply the faithful.

Also what about moral justification of theism. Thesists tend to have have social organisaiton whereas atheist have individuality. So, if you're looking for strong community, then the faithful life may be better. Atheists lack community, in that they have various moral perspectives - its pluralistic. No "unity"...

One might argue that faiths are more resilient to the spirit of the age, like capitalism, or communism as the faithless have no "deposit of faith" to collectively use as a standard measure of good.

OTOH that atheists may be more flexible and adaptive, and value creativity. More like Taoists where any fixed absolute methodology is a mistake.

An argument then:

human community can be good
atheists have less community
therefore theism is potentially better in that sense

If that's acceptable we can look at a slightly tendentious enthymeme:

God is benign
Atheism is malign
Therefore theism is consistent with reality

???

GrowingSmaller said:

Atheists, what do you think of the label "atheo-landers"?

Click to expand...

Personally, sounds kinda lame to me. Not really catchy, doesn't really mean much, certainly not something I'd self identify as given that there are lots of better descriptions out there.

GrowingSmaller said:

Also what about moral justification of theism.

Click to expand...

Sounds like the start of an argument from consequence to me.

GrowingSmaller said:

Atheists, what do you think of the label "atheo-landers"?

The idea is you live in an atheistic world, or physical land. Subjectively it is reality. But there are alternative realities one can access, depending on ones axioms and beliefs etc.

I'm trying to loosen up the discussion a bit, and make it a little more like fantasy adventure.

It seems like we're all stuck on replay. "Evidence..." "Not good enough" etc.

Atheo-landers see the land, but not the god.

"Look, its a piece of land, and that's all we know of...." is a basic caricature of the atheist perspective.

The ultimate reality is hidden, so various perspectives are possible - it may even turn out that atheism is the most unreal come judgement day.

So, life can be an adventure, and serious minded clinging to a world, like Buddhists say, can be delusional. Rather we can "teleport" or "enter into" various self consistent domains or milieux.

It seems like a people dedicated to the relentless march of reason, which atheists proclaim, could come straight out of a fantasy novel. All of us included - not simply the faithful.

Click to expand...

You would have to demonstrate that these alternative realities you speak of are actually real. Otherwise it is, as you said, a fantasy.

Kylie said:

You would have to demonstrate that these alternative realities you speak of are actually real. Otherwise it is, as you said, a fantasy.

Click to expand...

IMO it depends on axioms and personal standards. Its commonly thought that religious positions are untestable, therefore they can not be ruled out. So, if you have different standards of evidence to atheists, and a different mind set, you create a reality to live in. You'd probably say "reality" and leave reality without scare quotes for your version. But I differ. We all live in a personal "reality" in that its apparent but not proven or validated in any ultimate sense...



I accept standard atheism its its virtues, but its not solid enough to actually trans-world falsify all other perspectives, like Hinduism etc.

So, there is a gap on the epistemology leading to metaphysical options, like however small or unusual. After that its not you must believe (i.e. its totally necessary from a philosophical perspective), but you more like should believe according to the law of averages or whatever....


Is that fair?

But seeing as if we all turn atheist there are so many uninhabited possible worlds, wouldn't that be a shame for the ecology of religious studies?

KCfromNC said:

Sounds like the start of an argument from consequence to me.

Click to expand...

True but we are human. We take in a lot of info in making assessments. We not isolated epistmes, but whole. If "well being" has a social dimension i.e. its enhanced by community, and secular ethics cant provide me with it, is that my weakness or the weakness of secular ethics or "secularism" per se?

You may argue faith is a crutch for the likes of me. But, why not "atheism is a sword"?




Maybe its two adaptive styles. To be atheist and flourish takes one set of mental skills, to be theist takes another. If I don't have the former (let's say I wanted to be t-total and have friends, which is true),

then should I a) just sacrifice my well being to atheism and wind up sober and lonely, a likely scenario or b) change faith to Islam and be t-totally sober and also popular?

It can be posed as "youre sacrificing epistemology to ethics" ( and making a fallacious appeal to consequence) but I can say, for balance "you're expecting me to sacrifice ethics and personal well being to a secularised epistemology".

An atheist could argue "I you don't make the grade, hard luck." If a Muslim turns the tables and says "you may go to hell" suddenly its unfair...

GrowingSmaller said:

IMO it depends on axioms and personal standards. Its commonly thought that religious positions are untestable, therefore they can not be ruled out. So, if you have different standards of evidence to atheists, and a different mind set, you create a reality to live in. You'd probably say "reality" and leave reality without scare quotes for your version. But I differ. We all live in a personal "reality" in that its apparent but not proven or validated in any ultimate sense...



I accept standard atheism its its virtues, but its not solid enough to actually trans-world falsify all other perspectives, like Hinduism etc.

So, there is a gap on the epistemology leading to metaphysical options, like however small or unusual. After that its not you must believe (i.e. its totally necessary from a philosophical perspective), but you more like should believe according to the law of averages or whatever....


Is that fair?

But seeing as if we all turn atheist there are so many uninhabited possible worlds, wouldn't that be a shame for the ecology of religious studies?

Click to expand...

Are you suggesting our personal opinions can change the reality of the universe? You're gonna have a hard time convincing me of that.

Kylie said:

You would have to demonstrate that these alternative realities you speak of are actually real. Otherwise it is, as you said, a fantasy.

Click to expand...

Do you mean demonstrate like mathematically, an a priori proof?

Its not been done aifaik.

Without a priori proof of atheism, you're left with fallible inductive reasoning as grounds for assuming that attitude. Its probably the case that.... argument from analogy etc.

Meaning trans-world epistemology has options. We can plug in to various personal worlds but none are proven (strictly speaking, like a priori using modal logic to show its true by definition and necessary) to be THE WORLD.

Even Descartes died. "I think, therefore, urggh...." Get me?

He was the King of Certitude!

All you can do afaik is present us with axioms and heuristics, and indicate this or that is likely to follow. Maybe its a case of the popular Bell Curve again. Given certain presuppositions etc., certain worlds are more likely than others? Others are deviant realities.

And then, possibly I suppose the irony sets in. I live in an unusual far out epistemic reality, at the silly edge of the curve, and I'm also victim of the herding instinct???

Are you suggesting our personal opinions can change the reality of the universe? You're gonna have a hard time convincing me of that.

Click to expand...

I'm more agnostic concerning ultimate reality, and libertarian regarding constructed reality.

Remember, my trans-world Bell Curve is based on differnet axioms and heuristics, so "normal reality" and "unusual reality" or the "standard/deviant" dichotomy will appear as different to me and from this model's prespective, than in the secular model.

So "normality" yes its a bit of a construct. And it cant be demonstrated, a priori to be THE WORLD, there are always alternative options available. Reality may seem sweet, but if you're willing to smudge your fudge, appearances can change...