Pragmatism, Idealism, and Skepticism

[Percivale]

This whole discussion is not terribly practical for me anyway, since I don't think I'm capable of believing something without evidence. And I do feel I have pretty strong evidence that God exists. Rather, I enjoy using my mind, and value both truth and ethics, so it is something to have a clear understanding on.

There are some distinctions we should make:
Belief has both a practical and theoretical side. A purely rational being would not make hardly any truth claims with certainty. Rather, theoretically I'd say: 'from the limited evidence I have assessed, there is a 67% probability that such is the case." In practice, though one has to choose one way or the other on any issue with ramifications for our actions. Regarding God's existence, one either does or does not pray and do any other relevant religious acts, and it affects who one associates with and has some bearing on shaping one's values. It is in the practical sense that I say I would continue to believe in God. If asked on a theoretical level, I would simply state what evidence I see one way or the other.

Another distinction is between believing without evidence and believing against evidence. The latter is much more likely to be wrong and have harmful effects--it is denying truth, while the former is merely guessing truth.

When I said without God one's values must be strictly utilitarian, I meant it in the philosophical sense, illustrated in the words of John Stuart Mill: "the greatest good for the greatest number", or in Sam Harris' words: "whatever is farthest from the worst possible misery for everyone." It is a valid philosophy or ethics and I mostly agree with it. But I don't see how valuing truth above all else fits into it. I suspect that Paradoxum's motives for that position are not as noble as she thinks. She said:

I suppose I value not being the delusional person believing in invisible intangible fairies, even if that felt nice.

That looks to me like it shows that she gets more pleasure from feeling superior to people who don't have evidence for their beliefs, and from feeling that she is immune to delusion, than she would from believing. I do respect valuing truth highly though. Perhaps the most noble thing to do, if I had no evidence for God one way or the other, would be to say: "I don't know if there's a God, but I'm going to live like there is, and hope so."

If you feel that religion has too much negative effects, I agree that fundamentalism or fanaticism is really bad. But there is something worse than religious fanaticism: nonreligious fanaticism. The number of people killed in the last century by nonreligious fanatics like Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, and others probably exceeds the number of people killed by religious fanatics in the last millenium.

I don't think it's right to class metaphysics with art, saying it is not right or wrong. On the other hand, one should not class it with science either--it's a middle category: it is true or false, but not testable or verifiable really, so we can't have certainly, yet on many questions must make a decision. The decision to trust our senses is a metaphysical one, for instance--can anyone prove we are not all in the Matrix? Questions like that we all answer one way for pragmatic reasons as well as by Ockham's Razor. Nothing is gained and much lost by believing we are in the Matrix, or other such beliefs, like solipsism. I think skepticism falls into the same category somewhat--definitely extreme skepticism does; one cannot survive if one doubts everything. Moderate skepticism I think has the same problem in a much smaller dose: anything one doubts and debunks cannot be enjoyed the way it can if one believes. In trade, you just get the pleasure of feeling mentally superior, which is a shallow feeling. Have you ever watched a movie you like with someone who is constantly poking holes in the acting, the script, the believability of the plot? My brother does that with The Lord of the Rings especially, and it kind of ruins the experience. That's how I feel about skeptics; they feel shallow or hollow to me somewhat, like they see the world in black and white. I have a personality that could go that way (INTP), but I really don't want to, and that I guess is my value reason (as distinct from evidential reasons) that I could not be an atheist or skeptic (do those always go together?). Don't take it personally please, I don't claim to know if any of you are what I describe.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

This whole discussion is not terribly practical for me anyway, since I don't think I'm capable of believing something without evidence. And I do feel I have pretty strong evidence that God exists. Rather, I enjoy using my mind, and value both truth and ethics, so it is something to have a clear understanding on.

There are some distinctions we should make:
Belief has both a practical and theoretical side. A purely rational being would not make hardly any truth claims with certainty. Rather, theoretically I'd say: 'from the limited evidence I have assessed, there is a 67% probability that such is the case." In practice, though one has to choose one way or the other on any issue with ramifications for our actions. Regarding God's existence, one either does or does not pray and do any other relevant religious acts, and it affects who one associates with and has some bearing on shaping one's values. It is in the practical sense that I say I would continue to believe in God. If asked on a theoretical level, I would simply state what evidence I see one way or the other.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1adK-Pi7kGU

I suspect that Paradoxum's motives for that position are not as noble as she thinks. She said:
That looks to me like it shows that she gets more pleasure from feeling superior to people who don't have evidence for their beliefs, and from feeling that she is immune to delusion, than she would from believing. I do respect valuing truth highly though. Perhaps the most noble thing to do, if I had no evidence for God one way or the other, would be to say: "I don't know if there's a God, but I'm going to live like there is, and hope so."

What do you imagine it would be like to live as though there weren't a god?

If you feel that religion has too much negative effects, I agree that fundamentalism or fanaticism is really bad. But there is something worse than religious fanaticism: nonreligious fanaticism. The number of people killed in the last century by nonreligious fanatics like Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, and others probably exceeds the number of people killed by religious fanatics in the last millenium.

What's remarkable about the men you mention is how their fanatical devotions could be described as religious.

I don't think it's right to class metaphysics with art, saying it is not right or wrong. On the other hand, one should not class it with science either--it's a middle category: it is true or false, but not testable or verifiable really, so we can't have certainly, yet on many questions must make a decision. The decision to trust our senses is a metaphysical one, for instance--can anyone prove we are not all in the Matrix? Questions like that we all answer one way for pragmatic reasons as well as by Ockham's Razor. Nothing is gained and much lost by believing we are in the Matrix, or other such beliefs, like solipsism. I think skepticism falls into the same category somewhat--definitely extreme skepticism does; one cannot survive if one doubts everything. Moderate skepticism I think has the same problem in a much smaller dose: anything one doubts and debunks cannot be enjoyed the way it can if one believes. In trade, you just get the pleasure of feeling mentally superior, which is a shallow feeling. Have you ever watched a movie you like with someone who is constantly poking holes in the acting, the script, the believability of the plot? My brother does that with The Lord of the Rings especially, and it kind of ruins the experience. That's how I feel about skeptics; they feel shallow or hollow to me somewhat, like they see the world in black and white. I have a personality that could go that way (INTP), but I really don't want to, and that I guess is my value reason (as distinct from evidential reasons) that I could not be an atheist or skeptic (do those always go together?). Don't take it personally please, I don't claim to know if any of you are what I describe.

I'm confused by what you are saying here. It doesn't seem clear to me.

 

[FireDragon76]

Well if God probably doesn't exist, you shouldn't believe in God. Whether a belief makes you feel good shouldn't be relevant.

I guess we have very different definitions of belief, or perhaps we disagree whether belief is justified or warranted even if there is the possibility that it is unjustified.

Feeling good is extremely important. Being miserable won't help those children with cancer one bit, in fact the opposite is likely the case. Happy people with community ties tend to be much more altruistic in their actions. All those things are the product of belief in God, since church membership or affiliation brings automatic ties to a wider community.

Truth is meaningful to me. It means I care about something real that is bigger than myself. I also think it helps people.

Skepticism ultimately is self-refuting. If there is no possibility of certainty about our knowledge, then there is no point in pursuing truth.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I guess we have very different definitions of belief, or perhaps we disagree whether belief is justified or warranted even if there is the possibility that it is unjustified.

Feeling good is extremely important. Being miserable won't help those children with cancer one bit, in fact the opposite is likely the case. Happy people with community ties tend to be much more altruistic in their actions. All those things are the product of belief in God, since church membership or affiliation brings automatic ties to a wider community.

On what do you base this conclusion? Those without belief in God can be, and often are, happy. They have community ties also. It seems that these are not the products of belief after-all, at least not for everyone.

 

[Percivale]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1adK-Pi7kGU

What do you imagine it would be like to live as though there weren't a god?

It's mostly about what one would not do: worship, attend religious services, let a belief in the afterlife inform one's values and goals, etc.

What's remarkable about the men you mention is how their fanatical devotions could be described as religious.

And Dawkins' focus on disproving God could be described as religious perhaps. Tell him that!! Or my rational approach could be described as non-religious. The point remains that Mao and the rest did not believe in a god or afterlife, so those are not necessary components of harmful fanaticism.

I'm confused by what you are saying here. It doesn't seem clear to me.

Is that because I'm communicating on a more emotional level, which I rarely do?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It's mostly about what one would not do: worship, attend religious services, let a belief in the afterlife inform one's values and goals, etc.

Okay.

And Dawkins' focus on disproving God could be described as religious perhaps. Tell him that!!

Dawkins' isn't focused on disproving God. He doesn't need to. All he needs to do, all anyone needs to do, is to point toward the poor case religion has made for a god or gods.

Or my rational approach could be described as non-religious. The point remains that Mao and the rest did not believe in a god or afterlife, so those are not necessary components of harmful fanaticism.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that belief in God is a necessary component of harmful fanaticism. History is replete with examples of all sorts of fanatics and people willing to murder in the name of an ideological cause.

Is that because I'm communicating on a more emotional level, which I rarely do?

It could be, but that's okay. That your previous post wasn't all that clear to me is not a criticism per se.

By the way, I noticed that you mentioned your personality being INTP. Just as an aside, to my knowledge, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is no longer considered a valid measure of personality. It is still widely available for general use, but it isn't taken so seriously among personality researchers.

 

[Davian]

This whole discussion is not terribly practical for me anyway, since I don't think I'm capable of believing something without evidence.

Me too.

And I do feel I have pretty strong evidence that God exists.

What do you mean by "pretty strong"? Only strong enough if you already believe?

Rather, I enjoy using my mind, and value both truth and ethics, so it is something to have a clear understanding on.

Do you think "truth" should comport with reality?

There are some distinctions we should make:
Belief has both a practical and theoretical side. A purely rational being would not make hardly any truth claims with certainty. Rather, theoretically I'd say: 'from the limited evidence I have assessed, there is a 67% probability that such is the case." In practice, though one has to choose one way or the other on any issue with ramifications for our actions. Regarding God's existence, one either does or does not pray and do any other relevant religious acts, and it affects who one associates with and has some bearing on shaping one's values. It is in the practical sense that I say I would continue to believe in God. If asked on a theoretical level, I would simply state what evidence I see one way or the other.

What evidence are you alluding to here?

Another distinction is between believing without evidence and believing against evidence. The latter is much more likely to be wrong and have harmful effects--it is denying truth, while the former is merely guessing truth.

That would be a false dichotomy. Rather that denying an (alleged) truth, one can simply be unconvinced - a neutral position.

When I said without God one's values must be strictly utilitarian, I meant it in the philosophical sense, illustrated in the words of John Stuart Mill: "the greatest good for the greatest number", or in Sam Harris' words: "whatever is farthest from the worst possible misery for everyone." It is a valid philosophy or ethics and I mostly agree with it. But I don't see how valuing truth above all else fits into it.

What value is there in believing in things untrue? Because it feels good? The alternative will make you sad?

I suspect that Paradoxum's motives for that position are not as noble as she thinks. She said:
That looks to me like it shows that she gets more pleasure from feeling superior to people who don't have evidence for their beliefs, and from feeling that she is immune to delusion, than she would from believing. I do respect valuing truth highly though.

Personally, I know that my senses are demonstrably unreliable. As an adult, I have believed in Santa. This is why I look to external, objective methods for my beliefs over personal experience.

Perhaps the most noble thing to do, if I had no evidence for God one way or the other, would be to say: "I don't know if there's a God, but I'm going to live like there is, and hope so."

I have never thought of gods as anything other than characters in books, so I would feel rather silly doing that.

If you feel that religion has too much negative effects, I agree that fundamentalism or fanaticism is really bad. But there is something worse than religious fanaticism: nonreligious fanaticism. The number of people killed in the last century by nonreligious fanatics like Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, and others probably exceeds the number of people killed by religious fanatics in the last millenium.

As bad as relgion has been, and the cult-like leaders that you mention, it would not seem an effective means of determining the reality of gods.

I don't think it's right to class metaphysics with art, saying it is not right or wrong. On the other hand, one should not class it with science either--it's a middle category: it is true or false, but not testable or verifiable really, so we can't have certainly, yet on many questions must make a decision. The decision to trust our senses is a metaphysical one, for instance--can anyone prove we are not all in the Matrix? Questions like that we all answer one way for pragmatic reasons as well as by Ockham's Razor. Nothing is gained and much lost by believing we are in the Matrix, or other such beliefs, like solipsism.

Solipsism fails, in that if we can hypothesize and test the 'reality' we observe, and it behaves in a consistent manner, there is no effective difference.

I think skepticism falls into the same category somewhat--definitely extreme skepticism does; one cannot survive if one doubts everything. Moderate skepticism I think has the same problem in a much smaller dose: anything one doubts and debunks cannot be enjoyed the way it can if one believes.

Religion as a comfort blanket. It only works if you and those around you refrain from poking holes in it or pulling on loose threads.

In trade, you just get the pleasure of feeling mentally superior, which is a shallow feeling.

I have never felt that. Religious beliefs take advantage of how the brain works under normal conditions - it just doesn't have to.

Have you ever watched a movie you like with someone who is constantly poking holes in the acting, the script, the believability of the plot? My brother does that with The Lord of the Rings especially, and it kind of ruins the experience. That's how I feel about skeptics; they feel shallow or hollow to me somewhat, like they see the world in black and white.

Or, they see it in remarkable and amazing clarity, without the blinders of religion.

I have a personality that could go that way (INTP), but I really don't want to, and that I guess is my value reason (as distinct from evidential reasons) that I could not be an atheist or skeptic (do those always go together?). Don't take it personally please, I don't claim to know if any of you are what I describe.

No problem. I have some land down in Florida you may be interested in buying. Do you know when is low tide?

 

[quatona]

I didn't know I wasn't allowed to ask questions, like a discussion.

As far as I am concerned, you are allowed anything you like on this forum.
And I am allowed to refuse to play the game of turning the tables.

Well you said that later on in the post.

I´m not sure what you are trying to tell me, here?
That I said it too late, so that it´s not to be considered?
That you don´t read the entire post and don´t consider the complete line of reasoning before you answer?
Something else?

I know. Though if not caring about truth makes you a crazy person, that could be a reason to care about truth. A personal reason, not an intellectual one.

Yeah, if. Now you just need to substantiate that premise.
And, btw., if you want to discuss with a person who "doesn´t care about truth", you better look for someone else. It´s not what I said nor meant to present as my position. I think I was much more precise. So, if you want to discuss my position with me, please consider what I submit.

I know you are limiting it to metaphysics now though.

Please don´t forget it.

So we shouldn't talk about metaphysics?

Why shouldn´t we? We can talk about metaphysics all day, I am just not thinking of a metaphysical talk as the exchange of truth claims.

I'd say some metaphysical claims can be expected to have evidence on earth. Eg: 'God is omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect and loving'. If there is great pointless suffering on earth, is that not a reason to reject that idea of God?

For several reasons I think this is a weak argument. It would lead to a totally different discussion.
Allow me to help you with a more obvious example: YEC. It makes claims that are irreconcilable with physical facts - so we can exclude it from the list of available options (then again, there´s AV and his "embedded age" thing, which takes this issue to another level).
But, yes, as soon as the supposedly "supernatural" is claimed to manifest inor interact with the our physical world in a way that is demonstrably in contradiction with the world as it is, we can take it from the list of available metaphysical ideas.

We might argue over what 'morally perfect and loving' means, but that's a different issue.

We not only might, we would have to. And because this is a different issue, I don´t want to go there, for the time being.

So isn't it fair to say you can have reasonable opinions on some metaphysics?

Insofar as these metaphysical ideas are about the interaction between the supposedly supernatural and the natural world, we can check their validity and possibly conclude that they are invalid.

Well I didn't know exactly what your position was, and what you wanted me to explain specifically. What is it your asking about? Caring about truth in general? Or just metaphysics?

I asked about your premise that not caring about truth in certain fields means "not really caring about truth" at all. This appears to be the notion that "caring about truth" is a value that trumps every other value, in every field.
This I asked you to substantiate.
If it is not your position, then fine. In which case I don´t understand what you mean by your equation, and remain perfectly comfortable with considering "caring about truth" as a means to an end.

I suppose, if you don't care about truth, there's no basis for anything else. I'd think even acting in on desires requires you to think you have feelings which can be satisfied in certain ways.

But then you could say that you only care about truth so far as it serves your desires.

Well, I am thinking in terms of "needs" which is a not so subtly different concept than "desires". Just so we don´t talk past each other.

I'd say that caring about truth all the time is more meaningful because you are part of something bigger than yourself, and that not caring about truth is living a fake life.

Are you just describing what you believe, or is this supposed to be an argument of sorts? Because, as it reads there, it looks pretty circular to me.
I also have problem understanding what you are thinking of when saying "part of something bigger than yourself".

I suppose it's down to what the individual cares about in the end.

Rather, it´s down to what the individual cares most about. That´s why I am a little frustrated with dichotomy 'either it is your highest value all the time, or you don´t care about it at all'.

Well if you want to say that murder is wrong, you need to believe in humans and things like guns, don't you? If you don't think it's true that humans exist, why would you be talking about them?

I don´t think of "Do guns exist? Do humans exist?" as a metaphysical question, in this context. Do you?

Well if someone says 'God exists', that's claiming something is true... isn't it? If that isn't a 'truth claim', what do you mean by the phrase?

Well, that´s not how we started. We started from "beliefs".

How do you buy food if you don't think shops exist?

Do you feel shops and food are metaphysical subjects?

Sorry, gotta run. More later.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I also find it annoying when skeptics act so sure of their skepticism, like Hume did, building his whole philosophy around it. I prefer being skeptical of skepticism, especially in practical life, but also in philosophical questions; keep the option open as to how sure we can be about the issue under discussion.

I'm largely in agreement with the OP, and especially this. I see the history of philosophy as a struggle between the skeptics and the idealists, e.g., on the subject of whether or not knowledge is possible, or an ethics can be justified, or whatnot.

I side mostly with the idealists. The skeptics have their uses, but only as the fertilizer for future success. David Hume is one of the biggest piles of fertilizer of them all.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

Do you think you can count things out, like my previous example of a perfectly moral God?

Yes, I think we can count things out,
a. when the effects of the claimed interaction between the alleged supernatural and the natural can´t be proven wrong or inexistent in nature.
b. when the concept is self-contradictory.

Why not withhold judgement?

I am all for withholding judgement. I am talking about personal beliefs.

It's not like art because art doesn't need truth claims.

Beliefs don´t require truth claims, either.
And in my understanding, metaphysical beliefs can´t be truth claims - even though some present them as such.

If you have a belief about something, then that is a truth claim, and so potentially true or false.

If you don't agree that beliefs are truth claims, I don't understand how you're using those words.

I use "I believe" mostly to signify that the following is not meant to be a truth claim, not a knowledge claim, not a judgement, but something I believe, in the absence of falsification or verification.

Don't you think it's meaningful to care about truth in itself?

Well, I personally don´t care about truth in itself, as I don´t care about abstractions in general.
I think I have explained already in detail when and why I occupy myself with seeking factual knowledge.

I suppose I value not being the delusional person believing in invisible intangible fairies, even if that felt nice.

It´s always great to value oneself for what one is.

Would you be in favour of that, if it really appealed to you? If you thought it would make your life better?

Sure, why not?

 

[Paradoxum]

Para,

Caring about ethics is definitely a 'good' for us to consider, and like you, I realize that our species has, even through various trials and errors (sins), been able to use social value judgements for the better.

So, I'm not knocking your focus on ethics, Para. It just seems that sometimes you focus on ethics/axiology at the expense of the other two fields of philosophy (i.e. epistemology and metaphysics), and I think a more holistic approach in evaluating our lives makes for a more coherent philosophical position.

One way in which the other two fields can be seen to tie-in together is in Kant's philosophy. His metaphysical and epistemological structures feed directly into, and are synthetic with, his ethical structures. This can also be said for Utilitarians such as Mill. In fact, it is the case for those who uphold a Christian type of 'Ethics of Care' as well.

Well that's probably true. In what way do you think my epistemology and metaphysics are lacking? And is that different from your disagreeing with me?

Moreover, it seems to me that although you have shared your ideas about epistemology in these forums, you sometimes cling a bit too firmly to Evidentialism, and I think you do this in that you profess its basic tenets without seeming to evaluate it's weaknesses.

If evidence includes reasoning, what is the weakness of having good reasons for beliefs?

Anyway, this is why I said 'tongue-in-cheek' that we should start calling you Ms. Clifford, since W.K. Clifford was one of the original (agnostic) philosophers who articulated the Evidentialist position.

I have no idea if that's a good thing or not.

This whole discussion is not terribly practical for me anyway, since I don't think I'm capable of believing something without evidence. And I do feel I have pretty strong evidence that God exists. Rather, I enjoy using my mind, and value both truth and ethics, so it is something to have a clear understanding on.

Fair enough.

It is in the practical sense that I say I would continue to believe in God. If asked on a theoretical level, I would simply state what evidence I see one way or the other.

You would continue to believe without evidence? If you have no good reason to believe in God, why not lack a belief in God? And if you don't believe in God, why act like there's a God? It seems like a ingenuine way to live.

When I said without God one's values must be strictly utilitarian, I meant it in the philosophical sense, illustrated in the words of John Stuart Mill: "the greatest good for the greatest number", or in Sam Harris' words: "whatever is farthest from the worst possible misery for everyone."

I don't see how that explains non-religious values must be utilitarian.

It is a valid philosophy or ethics and I mostly agree with it. But I don't see how valuing truth above all else fits into it. I suspect that Paradoxum's motives for that position are not as noble as she thinks.

Why?

That looks to me like it shows that she gets more pleasure from feeling superior to people who don't have evidence for their beliefs, and from feeling that she is immune to delusion, than she would from believing.

I wouldn't say that was the point. I used to believe in God, and it was an important part of my life. I wanted to devote my life to my faith. But then I doubted, and lost faith.

From my point of view now, I could have wasted my life believing in things no different than fairies. I don't want that to happen again, because I want to live a real life. There is meaning and concreteness not to build one's life on fiction.

Does that satisfy you, that it isn't all about feeling superior?

I do respect valuing truth highly though. Perhaps the most noble thing to do, if I had no evidence for God one way or the other, would be to say: "I don't know if there's a God, but I'm going to live like there is, and hope so."

Why is that noble? To me it seems shallow; less concerned about living a real life on principles.

If you feel that religion has too much negative effects, I agree that fundamentalism or fanaticism is really bad. But there is something worse than religious fanaticism: nonreligious fanaticism. The number of people killed in the last century by nonreligious fanatics like Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, and others probably exceeds the number of people killed by religious fanatics in the last millenium.

They were non-religious, but as far as I know their main motivation was communism, or power. They didn't kill because the holy book of atheism told them to. Being non-religious wasn't necessarily the major factor in the killing, just like not being stamp collectors probably wasn't relevant.

Moderate skepticism I think has the same problem in a much smaller dose: anything one doubts and debunks cannot be enjoyed the way it can if one believes.

Why enjoy something that is false? There are enough real things in life.

I don't enjoy a belief in Santa, but I think there's more important things than basic pleasure. Isn't that the shallow thing (I mention because you talk about shallowness lower down)?

In trade, you just get the pleasure of feeling mentally superior, which is a shallow feeling.

I suppose it depends on the nature of the feeling. If you think you've done well in thinking things though, I'd say that's similar to being proud of yourself after doing well in an exam or showed a skill. I wouldn't say that was shallow.

Have you ever watched a movie you like with someone who is constantly poking holes in the acting, the script, the believability of the plot? My brother does that with The Lord of the Rings especially, and it kind of ruins the experience. That's how I feel about skeptics; they feel shallow or hollow to me somewhat, like they see the world in black and white.

You can take pleasure in real things... you don't have to make things up.

I have a personality that could go that way (INTP), but I really don't want to, and that I guess is my value reason (as distinct from evidential reasons) that I could not be an atheist or skeptic (do those always go together?). Don't take it personally please, I don't claim to know if any of you are what I describe.

I suppose my personality type isn't against religion (INFJ).

 

[Paradoxum]

I guess we have very different definitions of belief, or perhaps we disagree whether belief is justified or warranted even if there is the possibility that it is unjustified.

Feeling good is extremely important. Being miserable won't help those children with cancer one bit, in fact the opposite is likely the case. Happy people with community ties tend to be much more altruistic in their actions. All those things are the product of belief in God, since church membership or affiliation brings automatic ties to a wider community.

It seems kinda shallow to me to believe things for pleasure. In my opinion it's better to have principles, like caring about truth. If you care about truth you'll want to avoid false beliefs, which doesn't mean just accepting things without reason.

I agree that feeling good is import, but I think truth is important too... perhaps more important.

Skepticism ultimately is self-refuting. If there is no possibility of certainty about our knowledge, then there is no point in pursuing truth.

There's no need for certainty to pursue truth. You can still get closer to truth than you would be if you didn't care.

As far as I am concerned, you are allowed anything you like on this forum.
And I am allowed to refuse to play the game of turning the tables.

I was just asking a question. It seems pretty defensive to call that turning the tables. I wasn't trying to catch you out, or whatever.

I´m not sure what you are trying to tell me, here?
That I said it too late, so that it´s not to be considered?
That you don´t read the entire post and don´t consider the complete line of reasoning before you answer?
Something else?

I read it all first. I'm saying that I didn't know if your 'only metaphysics' applied to the whole post. Especially because at the end of a post you said about destroying the foundation of all that needs truth. That sounded pretty apathetic to all truth.

Why shouldn´t we? We can talk about metaphysics all day, I am just not thinking of a metaphysical talk as the exchange of truth claims.

What's the point if you don't think there's any true opinion to come to? We don't talk about whether blue is better than red.

For several reasons I think this is a weak argument. It would lead to a totally different discussion.

What reasons? Feel free to message me if you want to put it somewhere else. I think it's a fair argument.

If I'd condemn a person for X, I don't see why a God concept would get a pass.

Allow me to help you with a more obvious example: YEC. It makes claims that are irreconcilable with physical facts - so we can exclude it from the list of available options (then again, there´s AV and his "embedded age" thing, which takes this issue to another level).
But, yes, as soon as the supposedly "supernatural" is claimed to manifest inor interact with the our physical world in a way that is demonstrably in contradiction with the world as it is, we can take it from the list of available metaphysical ideas.

We not only might, we would have to. And because this is a different issue, I don´t want to go there, for the time being.

Well if we agreed on morals we wouldn't have to debate that.

I asked about your premise that not caring about truth in certain fields means "not really caring about truth" at all. This appears to be the notion that "caring about truth" is a value that trumps every other value, in every field.
This I asked you to substantiate.
If it is not your position, then fine. In which case I don´t understand what you mean by your equation, and remain perfectly comfortable with considering "caring about truth" as a means to an end.

I agree that it implies that truth is a top value (with exceptions allowed). If you see truth as just a means (whereas I see it as an end in itself) I doubt there's an intellectual reason t dissuade you of that.

It's the same with morality. If someone doesn't care about being a moral and decent person, you can't convince them with reasoned argument.

Well, I am thinking in terms of "needs" which is a not so subtly different concept than "desires". Just so we don´t talk past each other.

Ok.

Are you just describing what you believe, or is this supposed to be an argument of sorts? Because, as it reads there, it looks pretty circular to me.

Just describing.

I also have problem understanding what you are thinking of when saying "part of something bigger than yourself".

Truth is a principle bigger than my basic desires. It's something that's relevant in some sense, even if I die (unlike my desires).

Rather, it´s down to what the individual cares most about. That´s why I am a little frustrated with dichotomy 'either it is your highest value all the time, or you don´t care about it at all'.

Do you care about a means, or just the end? If truth is just a means, do you care about it, or just what it does for you?

Well, that´s not how we started. We started from "beliefs".

You don't think 'God exists' is a belief?

I am all for withholding judgement. I am talking about personal beliefs.

I'm not sure what you mean. I'm saying, if you don't know if God exists, then you should lack a belief in God. That's what I mean by withholding judgement.

Beliefs don´t require truth claims, either.
And in my understanding, metaphysical beliefs can´t be truth claims - even though some present them as such.

'God exists' is a belief isn't it? And it's claiming that it's true that God exists, isn't it? So it's a truth claim, no?

How can there be no metaphysical truth claims. Even in art there are truth claims. If someone says 'blue is better than red', that's a truth claim, even if you think it's silly.

I use "I believe" mostly to signify that the following is not meant to be a truth claim, not a knowledge claim, not a judgement, but something I believe, in the absence of falsification or verification.

How can you believe something, but not think it's true? Can you give an example?


It´s always great to value oneself for what one is.

Sure, why not?

I'd think it's good not to believe in things that aren't real. To base one's life on fiction would make part of your life fake, and perhaps waste of time.

 

[Percivale]

You would continue to believe without evidence? If you have no good reason to believe in God, why not lack a belief in God? And if you don't believe in God, why act like there's a God? It seems like a ingenuine way to live.

You don't seem to understand uncertainty. One can be certain that God does or doesn't exist, and in that case one must be true to those beliefs to be truthful. I'm not addressing those issues, only the case of someone who is uncertain whether or not God exists. When uncertain, one must choose whether to live consistently with one belief or the other, and either choice is equally honest, puts equal value on truth, and either could be right or wrong. I'm stating that my values would favor choosing the theistic lifestyle in such a case.

I don't see how that explains non-religious values must be utilitarian.

Study philosophical utilitarianism. The word utilitarian does not have the same connotation in that context as it does colloquially.

I wouldn't say that was the point. I used to believe in God, and it was an important part of my life. I wanted to devote my life to my faith. But then I doubted, and lost faith.

From my point of view now, I could have wasted my life believing in things no different than fairies. I don't want that to happen again, because I want to live a real life. There is meaning and concreteness not to build one's life on fiction.

Does that satisfy you, that it isn't all about feeling superior?

Yes, I accept that you may have good reasons for your belief and can respect that. Just had to mention that skepticism does not automatically have disinterested motives, it can gratify personal desires as much as belief can, depending on one's situation. I do encourage self-examination, to cultivate mindfulness of one's motives and openness to other possibilities. Consider that there may be good evidence for theism that you haven't come across yet, so just stay open enough that if you do in the future you won't ignore it. I sometimes consider what would happen if various other beliefs turn out to be true, I think that's healthy to do.

Why is that noble? To me it seems shallow; less concerned about living a real life on principles.

Again, if one is uncertain either option could turn out to be the real life. if one option helps you attain your values better it's the more practical choice, and valuing truth is equal either way.

They were non-religious, but as far as I know their main motivation was communism, or power. They didn't kill because the holy book of atheism told them to. Being non-religious wasn't necessarily the major factor in the killing, just like not being stamp collectors probably wasn't relevant.

True. In the same way, there is no 'Holy book of Theism.' Usually people who commit violence in the name of god have political or other motives in reality. And particular religious sects may teach violence, like extremist Islam, in the same way that particular atheistic ideologies may, as in Marxist advocation of violent class struggles.

Why enjoy something that is false? There are enough real things in life.

I don't enjoy a belief in Santa, but I think there's more important things than basic pleasure. Isn't that the shallow thing (I mention because you talk about shallowness lower down)?

Some pleasures are deeper than others. Your reasoning could be used to disparage art and fiction; many of our deepest pleasures involve imagining things that are not real. How deep a pleasure is can be subjective, I'm just giving my perception.

I suppose it depends on the nature of the feeling. If you think you've done well in thinking things though, I'd say that's similar to being proud of yourself after doing well in an exam or showed a skill. I wouldn't say that was shallow.

True. I'd give it a mid-level rating on depth.

I suppose my personality type isn't against religion (INFJ).

yeah, personality has only a secondary role in affecting our beliefs, experiences and background have more.
[/quote]

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You don't seem to understand uncertainty. One can be certain that God does or doesn't exist, and in that case one must be true to those beliefs to be truthful. I'm not addressing those issues, only the case of someone who is uncertain whether or not God exists. When uncertain, one must choose whether to live consistently with one belief or the other, and either choice is equally honest, puts equal value on truth, and either could be right or wrong. I'm stating that my values would favor choosing the theistic lifestyle in such a case.

Why?

Again, if one is uncertain either option could turn out to be the real life. if one option helps you attain your values better it's the more practical choice, and valuing truth is equal either way.

Okay, but how does theism help you attain your values better? Couldn't you aspire to those values without it?

 

[Percivale]

Why?



Okay, but how does theism help you attain your values better? Couldn't you aspire to those values without it?

God gives me confidence that there is meaning, order, and destiny for our lives and our universe. Because he is there I can know that he has a purpose for our world, and that the evils in it are temporary and will be solved. His existence means that the deep beauty I see in the cosmos and the potential for greater and more meaningful joy that I sense is real, that I'm seeing reality on a deeper level, rather than experiencing something accidental or illusive that has no deeper cause than chemical reactions in the brain and no deeper purpose than keeping us reproducing.
So much of the arts, and philosophy too, were motivated by religion. Humans are wired to be fulfilled by worship, experiencing and acknowledging the value and beauty of something beyond themselves. I value this experience for its innate goodness, and it can also have benefits to one's moral outlook, especially for ordinary people who don't spend as much time philosophizing and discovering the practical reasons to be moral. I don't deny atheists can experience many of these things too, but it does seem like it would be harder or rarer.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

God gives me confidence that there is meaning, order, and destiny for our lives and our universe. Because he is there I can know that he has a purpose for our world, and that the evils in it are temporary and will be solved. His existence means that the deep beauty I see in the cosmos and the potential for greater and more meaningful joy that I sense is real, that I'm seeing reality on a deeper level, rather than experiencing something accidental or illusive that has no deeper cause than chemical reactions in the brain and no deeper purpose than keeping us reproducing. So much of the arts, and philosophy too, were motivated by religion. Humans are wired to be fulfilled by worship, experiencing and acknowledging the value and beauty of something beyond themselves. I value this experience for its innate goodness, and it can also have benefits to one's moral outlook, especially for ordinary people who don't spend as much time philosophizing and discovering the practical reasons to be moral.

What makes you think that this deep sense of wonder would suddenly vanish without theism?

I don't deny atheists can experience many of these things too, but it does seem like it would be harder or rarer.

Why do you think it would be harder for an atheist to experience what you have described? Many scientists are atheists. I don't understand how anyone, after listening to a scientist wax lyrical about the wonders of the cosmos, could come away thinking that the scientist's life must be devoid of wonder, beauty and meaning simply because he or she does not believe in God.

 

[Percivale]

What makes you think that this deep sense of wonder would suddenly vanish without theism?



Why do you think it would be harder for an atheist to experience what you have described? Many scientists are atheists. I don't understand how anyone, after listening to a scientist wax lyrical about the wonders of the cosmos, could come away thinking that the scientist's life must be devoid of wonder, beauty and meaning simply because he or she does not believe in God.

We all have available the ability for awe and wonder at the wonderful cosmos. Incidentally, our having that ability is something that theism would predict and atheism wouldn't--unless you really think a tendency for stargazing gave our ancestors a survival advantage. But what seems less accessible to atheists, of what I mentioned above, is the confidence in purpose and destiny to our lives. If God exists, he would have a purpose for us, a state we are preparing for that will be very good, one of deep happiness that will put the past into a richer perspective as an epic struggle in which good ultimately triumphs. If there is no God, we can have some hope that things will be better in the future, but they might as likely get worse, and the human race may go extinct with no ultimate meaning to their existence.

Anyway, these are my personal feelings on the issue; if you have a fulfilling outlook on life that is different, I'm not here to take that away. Of course, if God is real and there is an afterlife, it will then become important for you to realign your views with reality, which will be more knowable then. I mean, how would an atheist cope with realizing he has died but is still conscious in a new state of existence? Sudden shifts in belief can be hard, but I suppose we'll all have to make some then, and will be better for it. If there is no afterlife, I'll never know I guess, but what you don't know can't hurt you in this case I think.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

We all have available the ability for awe and wonder at the wonderful cosmos. Incidentally, our having that ability is something that theism would predict and atheism wouldn't

On what do you base this conclusion? Atheism doesn't predict anything. It's just a lack of belief in gods. Our sense of wonder and awe isn't entailed by theism either, which is just the belief in a god or gods. I suspect you are referring instead to your own particular theology, which you perceive as providing some explanation for our sense of wonder.

But what seems less accessible to atheists, of what I mentioned above, is the confidence in purpose and destiny to our lives. If God exists, he would have a purpose for us, a state we are preparing for that will be very good, one of deep happiness that will put the past into a richer perspective as an epic struggle in which good ultimately triumphs. If there is no God, we can have some hope that things will be better in the future, but they might as likely get worse, and the human race may go extinct with no ultimate meaning to their existence.

How does it follow that, if God exists, he must have a purpose for us? Even if God does exist, he might not care about human beings and their aspirations. This universe could have been a dry run for him, and he has since moved on to more interesting projects.

Anyway, these are my personal feelings on the issue; if you have a fulfilling outlook on life that is different, I'm not here to take that away. Of course, if God is real and there is an afterlife, it will then become important for you to realign your views with reality, which will be more knowable then. I mean, how would an atheist cope with realizing he has died but is still conscious in a new state of existence? Sudden shifts in belief can be hard, but I suppose we'll all have to make some then, and will be better for it. If there is no afterlife, I'll never know I guess, but what you don't know can't hurt you in this case I think.

I recently addressed a similar point with Colter. In such a situation, so long as one doesn't hold on to atheism religiously, it wouldn't necessarily be that hard to admit that one was wrong. It becomes hard for a person to admit to being wrong when they are shown to be wrong about something they had insisted they could not be wrong about.

 

[quatona]

dp

 

[quatona]

I was just asking a question. It seems pretty defensive to call that turning the tables. I wasn't trying to catch you out, or whatever.

You are free to perceive it as you wish. I was just explaining why I didn´t answer the question, and why not answering the question doesn´t equal you disallowing to ask it.

​

I read it all first. I'm saying that I didn't know if your 'only metaphysics' applied to the whole post. Especially because at the end of a post you said about destroying the foundation of all that needs truth. That sounded pretty apathetic to all truth.

That´s easily explained: I said it in response to your "if...then" (in which the "if" didn´t describe my position accurately). I just followed your hypothetical.

​

What's the point if you don't think there's any true opinion to come to?

For me, the point is pretty much similar to what the point of music, of story telling, of theatre, of metaphores, of creativity is: Inspiring each other, offer and share that which we perceive as beautiful ideas and visions.
Look, there wouldn´t be much point in watching a movie and asking yourself all the time: "But is this true?".

We don't talk about whether blue is better than red.

Agreed, but we don´t seem to be talking about the same, even though we agree that we aren´t talking about blue and red.

What reasons? Feel free to message me if you want to put it somewhere else. I think it's a fair argument.

It is an entirely different topic.
Meta-morality is interesting, and there are plenty of threads for discussing it. It´s not relevant here.

If I'd condemn a person for X, I don't see why a God concept would get a pass.

Neither do I, even though you seem to think that I do, for reasons that are unknown to me.

Well if we agreed on morals we wouldn't have to debate that.

We probably agree on morals, by and large. The question you raise here is a question of meta-morality, and I said nothing that suggests a discussion about meta-morality.
It´s a different discussion - interesting, but irrelevant here.

[But since you are so hell-bound to carry it here, I will humour you.
I don´t believe that morality is a matter of truth. I´m not a moral realist.
But if assuming for a moment that morality were a matter of truth:
Even if it turned out tomorrow that it´s true that killing, raping, injuring, genocide and torture are the means we are morally obliged to utilize at every given opportunity, it wouldn´t change my opinion and it wouldn´t change my behaviour. So much for the significance of "moral truths" (if such existed).]

​

I agree that it implies that truth is a top value (with exceptions allowed).

Cool. So we needn´t discuss it in the fundamentalist way I was afraid you meant to discuss it. We can discuss what the exceptions are.

If you see truth as just a means (whereas I see it as an end in itself) I doubt there's an intellectual reason t dissuade you of that.

Fair enough. And this would be a perfect example of what I am talking about: You believe one thing, I believe another - without intellectual underpinnings. The quest for "truth" doesn´t get us anywhere.

It's the same with morality. If someone doesn't care about being a moral and decent person, you can't convince them with reasoned argument.

Exactly, and in this regards it is the same as trying to convince someone that blue is better than red.

Truth is a principle bigger than my basic desires. It's something that's relevant in some sense, even if I die (unlike my desires).

I´m not sure I get how this is a comparison in size.
The ideal of "truth" as a "bigger principle" seems to be some sort of metaphysical idea itself. As such, I am tempted to argue that you hold it because it suits your needs best.

But, anyway, by the same token, "beauty", "inspiration", "fulfilment of needs" would be "bigger principles", as well. Thus, I don´t agree with the hidden assertion that your position is a position of values and principles, and mine is not.
The question is not "Values or not?", but "Which values?".

​

Do you care about a means, or just the end? If truth is just a means, do you care about it, or just what it does for you?

I value it as a tool (and I would about it, even though I might have no use for it, for the given purpose. After all, it might come in handy at another occasion).
You yourself point out the importance of principles. So, I suspect, that you are aware of the difference in "caring about" a principle and "caring about" a tool.

​

You don't think 'God exists' is a belief?

Yes, I think it is a belief. I do not think it can be a truth claim.

I'm not sure what you mean. I'm saying, if you don't know if God exists, then you should lack a belief in God. That's what I mean by withholding judgement.

I understood that. I just don´t agree.
If I knew that God existed or didn´t exist I wouldn´t have to hold a respective belief.
"Beliefs" are held in the realm of possibilities, in the absence of knowledge.

​

'God exists' is a belief isn't it?

Yes.

And it's claiming that it's true that God exists, isn't it?

"I believe that God exists" isn´t.
And, personally, I take every "God exists" for "I believe God exists", in the same way as I take "blue is better than red" as "I believe blue is better than red."

How can there be no metaphysical truth claims. Even in art there are truth claims. If someone says 'blue is better than red', that's a truth claim, even if you think it's silly.

With my friends, I am known for having the habit of occasionally shredding a song into pieces with intellectual arguments, with the result "This song is a worthless piece of crap.". Everyone involved know that this is just another way of saying "I don´t like this song", and that the intellectual part is just a post-hoc rationalization.

​

How can you believe something, but not think it's true? Can you give an example?

As long as you are determined to turn the descriptions of my beliefs into truth claims, I am reluctant to do that.
My metaphysical beliefs are a very private, intimate matter. They aren´t up for this kind of right-wrong discussion you are seeking. It takes a different atmosphere for me to share them. I´m shy that way.

I'd think it's good not to believe in things that aren't real.

Well, you don´t know that they are not real, do you?
So this doesn´t seem to be the appropriate way of going about this. It´s mere question begging.