Let's be Reasonable, Y'all

[Penumbra]

Not sure: it seems clear enough to me based on Neo and Morpheus' conversation when they meet in the flesh for the first time that he was quite unhappy (a splinter in one's mind driving one mad isn't quite indicative of being happy). And good memories don't indicate durative existential happiness.

It was a splinter in his mind because he had heard of it. It was a rumor, a legend. He was dissatisfied with life because a) the Matrix really isn't that great anyway. It's not a heaven, it's just earth, and he has a boring unappreciative job. b) He felt empty, either because of this blandness in life or because he was itching to know what the Matrix was because he had heard of it.

If he had not heard of the Matrix, he may not have been unhappy. Or, if he was unhappy anyway, it would be because of his disdain for his job or for the same sense of lack of meaning that some people feel in everyday life.

(That's about as far as I can go with that, as it is a fictional character portrayed by a less-than-skillful actor. )

If you recall, when Cypher wanted to be put back in the Matrix, he made it clear that he didn't want to remember anything. He wanted to go back to the Matrix and then never hear the word "Matrix" again. It is this knowledge that was the problem. You can only choose reason or happiness when you know there is a choice. When Neo was conscious of the fact that there was a choice, it was a splinter in his mind, and he made the choice of truth. Cypher realizes this dilemma, and requests to not be conscious of the choice.

-Lyn

 

[The Nihilist]

It so happens that I know quite a few chaps who put reason on a pedestal but are quite unhappy individuals, in that their attention to logical detail has negated belief in any metaphysical fancy (let's call it theism) that would otherwise allow them to be a little happier given their situation (in that they would have a sense of existential meaning grounded in God). I also know some chaps who happen to be quite happy, and also believe in the metaphysical fancy (let's call it theism) that the other group doesn't believe.

Is it more important to be happy or reasonable, rational, and/or logical?

Please don't say both. I know both is possible, so please don't say it.

Thx.

I think you have your story backwards. I think people favor reason because they are unhappy, not that they are unhappy because they favor reason. Similarly, I think people remains theists because they are happy, and not vice versa.

If that's the case, then isn't a better question "If you can't be happy, is being honest good enough?"

 

[quatona]

It so happens that I know quite a few chaps who put reason on a pedestal but are quite unhappy individuals, in that their attention to logical detail has negated belief in any metaphysical fancy (let's call it theism) that would otherwise allow them to be a little happier given their situation (in that they would have a sense of existential meaning grounded in God). I also know some chaps who happen to be quite happy, and also believe in the metaphysical fancy (let's call it theism) that the other group doesn't believe.

Ok, let´s for a moment work from your (actually pretty shaky) premise that you and I are in the position to tell the degree of other persons´ happiness and are also in the position to determine what would make them happier.
Since you pick "some chaps" who are emphasizing reason and are unhappy, and "some chaps" who believe unreasonable fancy and are happy, there are quite obviously large (but unmentioned) segments of people who emphasize reason and are happy, and people who believe in fancy stuff and are unhappy.
Thus, there´s not even coincidence where you implicitly claim causation even.

Is it more important to be happy or reasonable, rational, and/or logical?

False dichotomy.

Personally, I value reason, rationality and logic quite high, but that doesn´t keep me from being interested and engaging in matters that don´t involve the idea of gods but are completely independent of logic, reason and rationality - e.g. music, literature, theater, aesthetics and other such fancy stuff.

If believing in a god would increase my happiness and if I were capable of bringing myself to believing in a god I would do it in a heartbeat. It wouldn´t even be a question, an issue or a problem.

Please don't say both. I know both is possible, so please don't say it.

Putting up a false dichotomy for the topic and then asking everyone not to point out the obvious is a...well...surprising approach.

Is it more important to be happy or reasonable, rational, and/or logical?

Happiness depends to a large degree on successfully avoiding cognitive dissonance.
When I 1. don´t believe in the existence of a god and 2. am unhappy, believing in a god would and could not be the cure to my unhappiness. It´s not even an available option. I don´t pick and choose my beliefs arbritrarily, after all.
If I believe in a god there´s a good chance that this belief adds to my happiness. For persons who don´t believe in a god your question is irrelevant.

I know some chaps whose greatest delight is listening to Speed Metal and some of these chaps are quite happy.
I know some chaps who dislike listening to Speed Metal, and some o these chaps are quite unhappy.
What is more importatnt: Listening to Speed Metal or being happy?

 

[Received]

Since you pick "some chaps" who are emphasizing reason and are unhappy, and "some chaps" who believe unreasonable fancy and are happy, there are quite obviously large (but unmentioned) segments of people who emphasize reason and are happy, and people who believe in fancy stuff and are unhappy.

I don't care if the population I have in mind is a minority; I'm still interested in the population. Particularly, I have in mind a philosophically inclined group, obviously, and that little admission right there puts us in view of a minority position.

If believing in a god would increase my happiness and if I were capable of bringing myself to believing in a god I would do it in a heartbeat. It wouldn´t even be a question, an issue or a problem.

Then you seem to be the type who value happiness over reason. That's great. I'm right there with you. Even from a biological viewpoint -- evolution --, our capacity for abstract thought, and with it truth, developed long after the primal pleasure center was set in neural stone.

Putting up a false dichotomy for the topic and then asking everyone not to point out the obvious is a...well...surprising approach.

Yeah, but admitting that it can be both proves that I'm not dichotomizing; although I do think it's necessary that one is valued over the other, and not both being of equal value.

Happiness depends to a large degree on successfully avoiding cognitive dissonance.

That's perfectly right, but cognitive dissonance takes a degree of willingness to look at the facts, or an inevitability in looking at them. Not all who believe a lie are holding cognitive dissonance, especially in the case of certain truth claims that are unfalsifiable, which tends to be the case with fundamental philosophical truths and axioms, such as atheism and theism.

I know some chaps whose greatest delight is listening to Speed Metal and some of these chaps are quite happy.
I know some chaps who dislike listening to Speed Metal, and some o these chaps are quite unhappy.
What is more importatnt: Listening to Speed Metal or being happy?

Erm, self-evident award, Captain Obvious. Speed metal is for pansies who can't comprehend the profound beauty of slowhand.

 

[quatona]

Then you seem to be the type who value happiness over reason.

No, I don´t think so. It´s more like if it unreasonable/illogical it won´t make me happy. It´s not even an available option.
Beyond that, I am inclined to think that this is the case for everyone who is mentally sane. I mean, right from the top of my head I don´t recall any theist member of this board or theists in general who admits "I know my god concept is total nonsense, but I believe it anyway." They all seem to be rationalizing their concepts and arguing for their veracity from attempts of logic.

Yeah, but admitting that it can be both proves that I'm not dichotomizing; although I do think it's necessary that one is valued over the other, and not both being of equal value.

I disagree. It´s apples and elephants.

That's perfectly right, but cognitive dissonance takes a degree of willingness to look at the facts, or an inevitability in looking at them. Not all who believe a lie are holding cognitive dissonance, especially in the case of certain truth claims that are unfalsifiable, which tends to be the case with fundamental philosophical truths and axioms, such as atheism and theism.

No. The cause for cognitive dissonance is a clash of reason/logic/rationality with your convictions - not necessarily a clash between the facts and your convictions.
Concerning "truth claims" (as opposed to mere beliefs - which seemed to be your topic so far): truth claims about unfalsifiable matters of belief cause me cognitive dissonance, personally. So even if I were to belief in some god concept (which is not downright unreasonable/illogical/irrational due to the mere fact that it is defined as unfalsifiable) I wouldn´t make a truth claim out of it.

Erm, self-evident award, Captain Obvious. Speed metal is for pansies who can't comprehend the profound beauty of slowhand.

Ok.
But homour aside for a moment: Did my point get across or didn´t it?

 

[Received]

It´s more like if it unreasonable/illogical it won´t make me happy.

Then, presumably, if it is reasonable/logical, it will make you happy?

No. The cause for cognitive dissonance is a clash of reason/logic/rationality with your convictions - not necessarily a clash between the facts and your convictions.

Right, and my point is that cognitive dissonance isn't something experienced by even a moderate number of individuals who suspend their reasoning powers on a certain issue -- say, a group of religious folk who don't reason into the philosophical and historical foundations of a religion. Cognitive dissonance is very much avoidable, although there are many times where it's spawned upon you -- such as every other second in the apologetics forum, when a thoughtless theist would be confronted by an awesome atheist. It usually takes a certain degree of inevitability for cognitive dissonance to be planted, such as (again) when someone presents a killer argument and you're left standing holding the door. That's cognitive dissonance -- and it's even legitimate to hold, because the argument you've just heard could be completely wrong and you haven't had the time to think about it; it's the longterm cognitive dissonance, which holds to what one secretly fears to be false over a long period of time, that's the issue here.

(which is not downright unreasonable/illogical/irrational due to the mere fact that it is defined as unfalsifiable)

Ah, there are plenty of things that aren't falsifiable that we believe in, typically for pragmatic reasons. Such as the external world, the existing of other human beings (contra robots), even the existence of science as a sufficient method to gather knowledge (i.e., science is itself a philosophy that rests on certain assumptions).

 

[quatona]

Then, presumably, if it is reasonable/logical, it will make you happy?

No, that you try to establish a fallacious reverse conclusion is unreasonable and logically invalid, and therefore doesn´t make me happy.

Right, and my point is that cognitive dissonance isn't something experienced by even a moderate number of individuals who suspend their reasoning powers on a certain issue -- say, a group of religious folk who don't reason into the philosophical and historical foundations of a religion. Cognitive dissonance is very much avoidable, although there are many times where it's spawned upon you -- such as every other second in the apologetics forum, when a thoughtless theist would be confronted by an awesome atheist. It usually takes a certain degree of inevitability for cognitive dissonance to be planted, such as (again) when someone presents a killer argument and you're left standing holding the door. That's cognitive dissonance -- and it's even legitimate to hold, because the argument you've just heard could be completely wrong and you haven't had the time to think about it; it's the longterm cognitive dissonance, which holds to what one secretly fears to be false over a long period of time, that's the issue here.

That may be an interesting topic, but that´s not what I was talking about when introducing the term "cognitive dissonance". I was talking about being asked to believe in something contrary to your lack of belief in it. The whole premise "he would be happier if he believed in something he can´t believe in" is complete nonsense and not worth the effort of consideration.

Ah, there are plenty of things that aren't falsifiable that we believe in, typically for pragmatic reasons. Such as the external world, the existing of other human beings (contra robots), even the existence of science as a sufficient method to gather knowledge (i.e., science is itself a philosophy that rests on certain assumptions).

I´m sure you have a good reason to ignore the main part of the paragraph and instead just quote a parenthetical explanation and address it as though it would be my point. I just don´t know what good reason that might be.
Anyways...I personally have strong doubts about the existence of an external world etc., and even if I would firmly believe in it I wouldn´t make a truth claim of it.

My main problem with most god concepts is that they appear to be completely useless (to me). I must say I have never felt any desire for there being "existential meaning", "grounded in God" or whatever. When something means something to me, I am a happy camper already. Meaning, by nature of the word, describes a relation to a person. The word meaning, in my understanding, calls for the addition of "...". "Existential meaning" is word salad, as far as I am concerned.

Abrahamic religions in particular answer questions and solve problems that I don´t have, and when imagining I had those questions and problems I find the answers and solutions offered unsatisfactory.
So why the heck should I try hard to make myself believe in absurd problems just so that I get unsatisfactory solutions?
Is that pragmatical enough for you?

On another note it´s interesting how you first tried to distinguish philosophical/metaphysical/religious considerations from those that you described as being matters of discernable facts, and now you include the latter into the first category of unfalsifiable issues.
That´s illogical, but if it makes you happy....

 

[Received]

No, that you try to establish a fallacious reverse conclusion is unreasonable and logically invalid, and therefore doesn´t make me happy.

A little more straightfoward. If something is reasonable/logical, will it make you happy or not?

 

[quatona]

A little more straightfoward. If something is reasonable/logical, will it make you happy or not?

I really don´t know why you even ask this question, Received.
Holding a belief that is unreasonable to me and/or is illogical prevents my happiness (and, again, to a degree that it isn´t even an available option).
That doesn´t mean that the reverse conclusion is accurate: that the mere fact that a belief is reconcilable with what I consider "reasonability" and not downright illogical will make me happy.

As we seem to agree, metaphysical/philosophical considerations (and, if I understand you correctly, this is what we are actually talking about) require different (actually: lower) standards of support than considerations about the physical realm (aka: science).
I can´t ask for "proof", I can´t ask for "evidence", I can´t expect a forcing logical deduction in their support.

All I can ask is
1. that they are not downright illogical,
2. and that holding them appears reasonable to me (in that they make sense to me and/or are useful in helping me understand and deal with my reality).
These are requirements (IOW: holding a view that doesn´t match these requirements will prevent my happiness - again: even to a degree that it isn´t even an available option).
This, of course, doesn´t mean that holding a view that matches these requirements (particularly when it matches just the first) will make me happy. It´s just is one factor that is required.

The existence of a tooth fairy is not a downright illogical assumption. It is a metaphysical possibility. However, it doesn´t help me understand anything (au contraire: it raises a lot of problems and questions, and doesn´t answer or solve them satisfactorily). Thus, I can´t seem to bring myself to believing in its existence.
If you felt that believing in the tooth fairy helps me with being happy, go right ahead and show me how it does. Appeal to the desire in me that the belief in the tooth fairy will satisfy, and if you succeed there´s a good chance that I´ll adopt this belief.

Same goes for gods accordingly. You have been appealing to the desire for "existential meaning", but that´s not a desire I have. I don´t even really know what this term is supposed to mean. So you are invited to give other pragmatical reasons for me to belief in a god, but you better don´t work from the premise that just because these are good reasons for you to believe they will be good reasons for me.

 

[the sad clown]

Is it more important to be happy or reasonable, rational, and/or logical?

If something terrible happened to you, would you be happy? Would you be happier if it wasn't happening to you? Of course, but wishing it wasn't happening doesn't make it not happen. Your question doesn't work because it doesn't matter how much happier being a theist would make someone, if they're reality is a non-theistic one, the fact of what makes them happy or not isn't really going to change things. You don't get to choose to either be happy or be rational. You have what you have, and either you are happy with it or you are not. There is not connection between how reasonable or rational your beliefs are and your happiness. If my mother died, it would be reasonable of me to believe she was dead, yet I wouldn't be happy about it. My happiness is based on whether I like what is going on or not. My reasonableness in my beliefs are grounded in entirely different things than what I like, such as evidence, proof, logic, and other factors with epistemic force.

 

[Received]

I really don´t know why you even ask this question, Received.
Holding a belief that is unreasonable to me and/or is illogical prevents my happiness (and, again, to a degree that it isn´t even an available option).
That doesn´t mean that the reverse conclusion is accurate: that the mere fact that a belief is reconcilable with what I consider "reasonability" and not downright illogical will make me happy.

Good, that's what I expected. Now I'll try to stop being lazy and address your other typically excellent points.

The existence of a tooth fairy is not a downright illogical assumption. It is a metaphysical possibility. However, it doesn´t help me understand anything (au contraire: it raises a lot of problems and questions, and doesn´t answer or solve them satisfactorily). Thus, I can´t seem to bring myself to believing in its existence.
If you felt that believing in the tooth fairy helps me with being happy, go right ahead and show me how it does. Appeal to the desire in me that the belief in the tooth fairy will satisfy, and if you succeed there´s a good chance that I´ll adopt this belief.

So what I can get from this: you appear to be saying that you hold to rationality/logic/truth/knowledge because holding to a claim that isn't true "raises a lot of problems and questions," presumably at its worst cognitive dissonance. If these problems and questions (and cognitive dissonance) weren't present, you'd be fine with believing anything if it made you happy in doing so. This makes it clear to me that you value being happy more than you value being right, because you're insistent on being rational/logical/etc. as a means to being happy; i.e., if you weren't happy as a result of being rational/logical, and instead were made unhappy by it, you wouldn't do it. Maybe?

You have been appealing to the desire for "existential meaning", but that´s not a desire I have.

I'm pretty certain it is. There's nothing essentially theistic about existential meaning; what theism does offer as an advantage is God as a perpetual source of this existential meaning (you can, at the very least, access Him through prayer -- bam, meaning). Existential meaning differs from generic meaning in that the latter refers to objects as they are perceived and judged by us ("that's a rock," "that's a spoon," "that's my lunch," all of which mean something), whereas the former entails goal directed behavior. I'm absolutely certain you have existential meaning, even if you don't call it that.

I´m sure you have a good reason to ignore the main part of the paragraph and instead just quote a parenthetical explanation and address it as though it would be my point. I just don´t know what good reason that might be.

I think I misread what you wrote. I thought you said "which is downright unreasonable/illogical/irrational due to the mere fact that it is defined as unfalsifiable," rather than "which is not downright...".

 

[quatona]

So what I can get from this: you appear to be saying that you hold to rationality/logic/truth/knowledge because holding to a claim that isn't true "raises a lot of problems and questions," presumably at its worst cognitive dissonance. If these problems and questions (and cognitive dissonance) weren't present, you'd be fine with believing anything if it made you happy in doing so.

While in parts you paraphrase my statements accurately, there´s some noise introduced.
“Truth” wasn´t even a term or concept that played any part in our conversation – and rightly so, considering that we are talking about philosophy/metaphysics/theology/theism.
I don´t think that we can discern “truth” in these matters. All we can do is discern (and exclude) demonstrably false reasoning and logical faults of a particular view. Both, however, have no bearing on the question whether the result is “true” or not. You can reason poorly and use faulty logic, yet the result may happen to be accurate. There can be worldviews that contain no logical mistakes yet may be inaccurate.
Your dichotomy was “happiness vs. reason/rationality/logic”, not “happiness vs. truth” and not “truth vs. reason/rationality/logic”.

This makes it clear to me that you value being happy more than you value being right,

Hang on a second.
Firstly, "being right" was not part or criterium of your question or the discussion so far (see above). I´m confused when the horses are changed midstream.
Secondly, I was under the impression that we were discussing the philosophy/metaphysics, and that we were agreeing that these considerations - by their very nature and due to lack of falsifiability, lack of evidence/proof etc. - can not be about "being right".
So I guess it´s obvious that in questions where "being right and knowing you are right" is not even an available criterium I value other criteria higher. That´s trivial, banal.
Avoiding logical mistakes, avoiding faulty reasoning is a sine qua non for me. It has first priority in my approach – and the happiness that a certain worldview might bring to a person who doesn´t recognize its logical flaws does does not trump this priority.
Whilst, if a worldview could be demonstrably “right”, I would adopt it regardless any unhappiness it might cause me.

because you're insistent on being rational/logical/etc. as a means to being happy;

Not a means, but one prerequisite. Not for being happy, but for not being unhappy.
Holding a view that´s illogical makes me unhappy. Holding a view that is logically sound does not necessarily make me happy. I don´t know what´s so hard to understand about that.
Having cold feet makes me unhappy. Doesn´t mean I am happy any time and just because I have warm feet.

i.e., if you weren't happy as a result of being rational/logical, and instead were made unhappy by it, you wouldn't do it.

Depends on the alternatives. If there is a logically sound view that makes me happier I guess I would acquire this one. In no case, however, I would pick an alternative that is illogical or unreasonable – no matter how happy it would make me if it were not illogical or unreasonable.

I'm pretty certain it is. There's nothing essentially theistic about existential meaning; what theism does offer as an advantage is God as a perpetual source of this existential meaning (you can, at the very least, access Him through prayer -- bam, meaning). Existential meaning differs from generic meaning in that the latter refers to objects as they are perceived and judged by us ("that's a rock," "that's a spoon," "that's my lunch," all of which mean something), whereas the former entails goal directed behavior. I'm absolutely certain you have existential meaning, even if you don't call it that.

Ok, now that you have provided your definition of "existential meaning" I would agree that I give "existential meaning" in that indeed I perform goal directed behaviour.
I guess I misinterpreted this statement in the OP:

allow them to be a little happier given their situation (in that they would have a sense of existential meaning grounded in God).

It can be understood as implying that there is no “existential meaning” without a god (or without belief in a god) – and that´s how I read it.
I understand now that you were talking about a situation where someone would be happier with “having a sense of existential meaning grounded in God” than with having a sense of existential meaning that is not grounded in a god.
Personally, I don´t know why someone would think that the idea that there is an accessible “source of existential meaning” helps with performing goal directed behaviour. If I felt that there were any such advantage coming from holding a god concept, and if this god concept were logically flawless and without self-contradictions I suspect I might consider adopting it.
IOW: In view of your definition of “existential meaning” I would change my response “I have no desire for existential meaning” into “I have no desire for my goal directed behaviour to be grounded in a god (or belief in a god)”.

I´ll give you another example: I am toying with the “karma” concept. It´s not demonstrably false, it does not contain logical mistakes, it does not require me to be irrational (any of which would make it inacceptable for me) – but I am pretty sure it is just a human concept and not something that “exists out there”.
I find this concept pretty helpful in many respects – and therefore I have no problem operating with this tool.

 

[JSynon]

It so happens that I know quite a few chaps who put reason on a pedestal but are quite unhappy individuals, in that their attention to logical detail has negated belief in any metaphysical fancy (let's call it theism) that would otherwise allow them to be a little happier given their situation (in that they would have a sense of existential meaning grounded in God). I also know some chaps who happen to be quite happy, and also believe in the metaphysical fancy (let's call it theism) that the other group doesn't believe.

Is it more important to be happy or reasonable, rational, and/or logical?

Please don't say both. I know both is possible, so please don't say it.

Thx.

I'm not sure if you remember me Received, but I remember your name from years ago.

For me there is no question. Happiness trumps truth when it comes to questions of metaphysics. Ignorance is bliss. And I'm not saying that if you are a believer in God you are ignorant. If you are a believer in God then you are wiser than I, if not only for the reason that it makes you happy and I lack that happiness. Great question by the way.