VRChat

I’ve been playing around in vrchat for a while. It’s a beautiful game and fun way to chat with strangers. Too bad it doesn’t run well on my laptop.

The Norton Introduction to Philosophy

The introduction to chapter two brought me down a really interesting path of thought and is a lesson I’ll probably remember for the rest of my life.

Chapter 2: Is It Reasonable to Believe without Evidence?

Since there’s no argument that proves God exists, the question is if faith in God’s existence is reasonable?

Do we agree with the following statement: “You should not hold a belief unless you can support it by citing evidence or giving an argument.”

A belief that cannot be supported by an argument is a properly basic belief. A belief is a basic belief for you if you cannot defend it with an argument. A properly basic belief is a basic belief except reasonable for you to hold it.

So we have three questions:

1. Are there any properly basic beliefs?
2. If so, what are the conditions under which a belief is properly basic?
3. Does a belief in God satisfy those conditions?

There is an argument for properly basic beliefs. Something like 4 times 4 equalling 16 is very hard to defend for non-mathematicians. How do you know the calculation holds? The premises for each of these arguments can be broken down endlessly.

Some philosophers think that a belief is properly basic when it its denial is unthinkable: Can anyone reasonably deny that 4 times 4 does not equal 16? This doesn’t hold up for theists, since it is reasonable for atheists to believe in atheism. It’s possible for people not to believe in God (especially the monotheistic Abrahamic God of this argument).

Epistemic vs. Practical Reasons for Belief: An example of reasons someone would believe in something for practical reasons is Pascal’s wager. A belief is epistemically rational if it is coherent with canons of logic, probability, and evidential support. A belief is practically rational (or pragmatically rational, or instrumentally rational) if it is believed holding the belief will have good consequences. These two usually coincide.

Blaise Pascal (of the famous Pascal’s Wager) believes there is a practically rational reason to believe in God: Eternal happiness is worth pretty much any troubles or downsides that come from belief.

William James (“father of American Philosophy,” 1842-1910) says that the belief in God is special compared to most problems since the question is both forced and momentous. He considers an intellectual connection to God to be profoundly valuable in every moment. He argues it is both practically and epistemically rational to believe in God. Two people can arrive at two different answers to profound or religious questions that cannot be settled by evidence and argument. This may happen because each person has different morals. Both could be reasonable even though neither person can convince the other person.

• This is similar to Hui Shi’s paradoxical arguments, that it’s a matter of perspective and not a universal black-and-white in these cases.

William James (1842–1910): The Will to Believe

I’m skipping over the other readings for now since as a person, William James interests me the most for his focus on the spiritual experience and that he takes a more multicultural view towards theism.

William James talks of “living” or “dead” hypothesis, like live or dead electrical wires. A live hypothesis appeals as a real possibility to somebody, while a dead one does not. He asks you to consider believing in Mahdi (a sort of Islamic Jesus, pardon the analogy) but those of a Christian background would not consider it – a “dead” wire. To an Arab, even if they don’t consider themself one of Mahdi’s followers, the wire would be live and they would consider it more than we would as it is in their mind’s possibilities.

He also talks of forced or avoidable: A forced option is where you may choose not to take either option. For example, if it is raining and I give you the choice “take an umbrella or don’t,” you can choose not to go outside. A forced option is a binary option and one side must be chosen.

Finally, there is the momentous and trivial: A trivial decision is trivial when the opportunity is not unique, the stake is insignificant, or decision is easily irreversible. Momentous decisions have great consequences upon failure and are rare opportunities.

Questions:

According to James, it is rational to believe a proposition in the absence of evidence when the option is forced, live, and momentous and when the question cannot be resolved on intellectual grounds. Explain these four conditions with examples.

• Forced is when there is no alternative than to settle the proposition, live means it has relevance to someone (a real possibility), momentous means it is of importance and is a huge opportunity, and not being resolved on intellectual grounds means that natural science or logic can’t solve it.

True or false: James thinks that the option “Believe in God or don’t” is live, forced, and momentous.

• True, he believes it is all of the three.

James gives several examples in which it is permissible to believe a proposition even though the evidence for it is insufficient. Give an example of your own to illustrate James’s position.

• Job interview

James holds that our intellectual lives are governed by two commandments: “Believe truth!” and “Shun error!” Explain why these are two distinct commandments.

• Going to paste the answer: “the goal of believing truth pushes us to be bold in forming beliefs that go beyond the evidence; the goal of avoiding error pushes us toward caution.”

Things I’m Liking

• J MAGIC & jmagic jr: 10+ years old, 371 views. Wholesome magic. Give it a watch.