Hoping that something is possible versus believing something actual

[Ripheus27]

Suppose we ought to proportion our beliefs to the evidence. Some of us claim to have evidence of God's existence, but these samples are either subjective (our own feelings of a divine presence) or invalid/unsound (e.g. the cosmological argument). Indeed, it's not easy to see how even a feeling of our own could be evidence even of our own; how does an infinite being get compacted into a fleeting emotional state? Thus religious feelings are not even very strong subjective evidence of God.

Next, we might at least think that God is possible. If we're Plantingans, we'll go on to say that a possible necessary being is as good as an actual one, wherefore we would again claim proof of the Lord; but Plantinga's argument is not as strong as he presents it (I think he calls it "invincible" or something). For to show that something is objectively possible requires more than just showing that we can "think" or "imagine" it. Being able to think of something proves that we can think of it, not that it also is able to exist outside of thought. For example, I can think of a whole alternative set of laws of physics, but this doesn't mean that our world, right now, could just up and switch out its physics for the ones I make up in my mind.

Ought we to proportion our hopes to evidence? Arguably, proportioning beliefs in this way can be grounded on a higher principle of devotion to truth. Sometimes we speak of beliefs having an attitude-to-world direction of fitness. Desires, contrarily, have world-to-attitude direction of fit. Hopes are more like, or just are a kind of, desire. Hoping for something impossible would be irrational as there would be no way to satisfy such a desire. However, hoping that something might be possible (something that is not intrinsically impossible--a true contradiction being intrinsically impossible for instance) doesn't seem as if it would be irrational. What if, then, we just hoped that God *might* be out there, ready to give us new life after death and power to win over sin?

Such a hope would be a subjective value. It would not be doctrinal/dogmatic, so it's not something we could reasonably expect of others without their deep consent. Everyone would put their religious hopes in the narratives of devotion or inspiration that struck them as most aesthetically fitting; thus there would be room for missionary work of an odd sort in this system, only it would be more like showing someone the paintings of an artist we liked a lot, and hoping that this someone saw beauty in the story-concepts of our religion. But now as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, if someone didn't see what we hoped he or she would, we would have to accept this and move on, more or less--at least, we should never impose our conceptual sculptures on someone by state intervention, say.

 

[Ripheus27]

Btw, this theory is not mine: I came up with it on my own, but the utilitarian Mill had much earlier expressed a comparable opinion, and Onora O'Neill ("Kant on Reason and Religion") explains Kant's faith in this way.

 

[bhsmte]

Ripheus27;67190718]Suppose we ought to proportion our beliefs to the evidence. Some of us claim to have evidence of God's existence, but these samples are either subjective (our own feelings of a divine presence) or invalid/unsound (e.g. the cosmological argument). Indeed, it's not easy to see how even a feeling of our own could be evidence even of our own; how does an infinite being get compacted into a fleeting emotional state? Thus religious feelings are not even very strong subjective evidence of God.

The individual psychological factor is in major play here.

Some people have a great psychological need to believe a God exists, one that is watching over them, giving them security and the possibility of eternal life. This is a very compelling need for some and how they perceive reality, is impacted by it.

Not saying this need is unhealthy, because believing can be very healthy for some, but it is the reality of how certain minds work.

 

[jayem]

I may not understand the OP, but believing something possible and hoping that it's actual aren't mutually exclusive.

I can believe it's possible that my $5 Mega-Millions ticket will be a jackpot winner. In fact, I know with certainty that the odds are 5 in 280+ million. But I can also hope it actually happens.

 

[Paradoxum]

I think acting on hope can be unreasonable.

I might hope that there is treasure under my garden, so getting crazy into debt doesn't matter. But acting on that wouldn't be a good idea.

So at least some times we should act on hope according to it's reasonableness. And how seriously you take a hope can be in proportion to the evidence, or possibility of being true.

I might have a slight hope that there's a heaven, but I wouldn't say that would inspire anything like missionary work. If you're that committed to a hope, that hope might also be a belief.