Doxastic control?

Originally posted by josephw
How's that. It was a reply to bbarrs' post.

If I start by saying

'The Flying Spagetti Monster exists whether you believe it or not'

do you give credence to anything else I say?

Originally posted by bbarr
I can't parse this.

Sorry. I guess I haven't fully formulated a standard way of putting it yet...

If I have a set of beliefs that, however far removed from any natural explaination or evidence, can be shown (scientifically) to confer an advantage to me and mine, does it really matter that the logic of the beliefs themselves fall short of any reasoned approach?

Originally posted by snowinscotland
Sorry. I guess I haven't fully formulated a standard way of putting it yet...

If I have a set of beliefs that, however far removed from any natural explaination or evidence, can be shown (scientifically) to confer an advantage to me and mine, does it really matter that the logic of the beliefs themselves fall short of any reasoned approach?

Oh, O.K., I get what you're saying. It is certainly possible that we are disposed to believe some falsehoods because those falsehoods confer an advantage on us. My initial point was not that false beliefs cannot confer an advantage, or that true beliefs may confer a disadvantage. My point was that the actual process by which we form beliefs is normally not sensitive to these pragmatic considerations. I cannot bring myself to believe something on the basis of pragmatic reasons. This is not the same as saying that pragmatic considerations do not exert some tacit or unconscious influence on belief formation. For all I know, they do. But it is important that this sort of influence must be beneath conscious awareness. Suppose I promise to give you $1,000,000 if you sincerely believe that 2+2=5. This may lead you to cast around for evidence that 2+2=5, but it will not itself suffice for you to come to believe that 2+2=5.

Originally posted by bbarr
Oh, O.K., I get what you're saying. It is certainly possible that we are disposed to believe some falsehoods because those falsehoods confer an advantage on us. My initial point was not that false beliefs cannot confer an advantage, or that true beliefs may confer a disadvantage. My point was that the actual process by which we form beliefs is normally not ...[text shortened]... for evidence that 2+2=5, but it will not itself suffice for you to come to believe that 2+2=5.

I disagree. Any belief starts out as a conscious decision to 'allow' something to be 'true'. The set of circumstances that follow can be sought to reinforce the belief or reject it. If you are surrounded with people with diverse views you are unlikely to form the same set of rigid beliefs than if you are surrounded with eg a cult like scientology.

Originally posted by bbarr
So, suppose I have good pragmatic reasons to believe that God exists (perhaps because it will benefit me, or harm me if I don't). These reasons are not of the sort that exert a rational constraint on belief formation. Belief formation typically (in everyday cases) proceeds via the consideration of evidential reasons, not pragmatic ones. If I was assured tha ...[text shortened]... e truth of propositions like "God exists", "Jesus rose from the dead", etc. What say you?

I don't know if this will go in the direction you are asking, but when you mentioned the "killer in the closet", it made me reflect on the fact that most of our religious persuasion is fear based. I guess on some level it must have this emotion as the reality of Jesus' resurrection is not there. It seems to work best with children where our most formative ideas of God begin.

You used the term "out to save others." I imagine that on some level this may be heard by you as "out to control others" as I hear it that way. If the language of the theist were changed to "out to be friends and love one another even as I believe Jesus loves me", would this be language that you would find more conducive to "relationships" and understandings of faith?

Originally posted by snowinscotland
I disagree. Any belief starts out as a conscious decision to 'allow' something to be 'true'. The set of circumstances that follow can be sought to reinforce the belief or reject it. If you are surrounded with people with diverse views you are unlikely to form the same set of rigid beliefs than if you are surrounded with eg a cult like scientology.

Oh, how interesting.






Do you believe that I wrote above "Oh, how interesting"? If so, did you make a conscious decision to have this belief? Could you have made a conscious decision not to have this belief?

Originally posted by snowinscotland
If I start by saying

'The Flying Spagetti Monster exists whether you believe it or not'

do you give credence to anything else I say?

Try this version:

The FSM's existence does not depend on whether you believe in it or not.

Originally posted by bbarr
So, suppose I have good pragmatic reasons to believe that God exists (perhaps because it will benefit me, or harm me if I don't). These reasons are not of the sort that exert a rational constraint on belief formation. Belief formation typically (in everyday cases) proceeds via the consideration of evidential reasons, not pragmatic ones. If I was assured tha e truth of propositions like "God exists", "Jesus rose from the dead", etc. What say you?

Considering, as you say, that belief formation proceeds via the consideration of evidential reasons, would it then be accurate to assume that the enduring beliefs of Christians are for the most part rational beliefs based on evidence?

In my case it was the integrity of the biblical texts as a historical document which convinced me of the reliability of its testimony. I have read plenty of fiction and non-fiction, bad writing and good writing, and I know the feel of a written piece when it lacks foundation in reality. One of the first rules of writing is to write about something you know about, because if you make it up the reader will inevitably find you out. In the biblical texts there always exists the weight of this reality, that which can be palpable to the mind and handled by the mind like a warm stone. The weight of its reality can be returned to and it remains the same stone, yet it continues to reveal deeper significances upon further investigation. Even the miraculous takes on a character of matter-of-factness; subtexts and contexts are continuous revelations as to the depth and brevity of the accounting. All in all, through careful reading of the Bible I have become absolutely convinced of the reliability of its testimony, not only from an intellectual stand-point but from a gut level.

This coupled with the fact that, as far as historical documents go, the Bible is the most well-preserved document the human race has ever known. It was written within one generation of Christ's ministry and the vast collection of early Christian writings attest to the preservation of Christ's core teachings from the time of his death to the present day. All things being equal, there is no reason not to take the biblical account seriously.

EDIT: Beyond this there is also the experience, albeit a subjective experience (though almost universally shared among believers), of God's presence in my life as an adopted son in Christ, which is a continuous stream of an evidential reason for belief.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Considering, as you say, that belief formation proceeds via the consideration of evidential reasons, would it then be accurate to assume that the enduring beliefs of Christians are for the most part rational beliefs based on evidence?

In my case it was the integrity of the biblical texts as a historical document which convinced me of the reliability o ...[text shortened]... dopted son in Christ, which is a continuous stream of an evidential reason for belief.

In terms of mystical experience, there is the experience and then there is interpretation (including what James Austin calls “reflexive interpretation,” and I have called “immediate translation” that can arise in the brain/mind in the midst of the raw experience, as the mind tries translates the non-conceptual experience into conceptual content). It is with regard the interpretation/translation—even that it is interpretation/translation—that you and I tend to disagree.

In my view, minimally, no rendering of the ineffable into conceptual representation occurs without that translation/interpretation activity. The Zen masters call such “reflexive translations” makkyo, bedeviling illusions, and counsel ignoring them. I sit a bit looser with it, because I think that they can contain valuable insights (including aesthetic ones).

Nevertheless, I maintain that the ineffable is the “bedrock” beyond which one cannot get. It is the territory, of which we attempt to make maps. But none of the labels and gridlines that we put on our maps exist in the territory.

I no more object to Christian map-making per se (though I may object to particular maps) than I do to Buddhist maps or Vedantist maps or Taoist maps. I enjoy discussing and debating the features of various maps. Merton’s map is different from D.T. Suzuki’s. But my ultimate point is not to confuse the maps with the territory—which remains fundamentally ineffable.

Dualism and non-dualism are both maps; I simply find the latter to be more in accord with my own experiences, and more reasonable.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Considering, as you say, that belief formation proceeds via the consideration of evidential reasons, would it then be accurate to assume that the enduring beliefs of Christians are for the most part rational beliefs based on evidence?

In my case it was the integrity of the biblical texts as a historical document which convinced me of the reliability o dopted son in Christ, which is a continuous stream of an evidential reason for belief.

Considering, as you say, that belief formation proceeds via the consideration of evidential reasons, would it then be accurate to assume that the enduring beliefs of Christians are for the most part rational beliefs based on evidence?

This is a very interesting thread. First, I agree with bbarr's opening post, and I do not think solely pragmatic considerations can support genuine belief.

To your question, I think it would be accurate to say that such beliefs as you mention are based at bottom on what the subject takes to be evidence (considerations that they think bear directly on the truth of the proposition). However, that one thinks he has good evidence for some belief does not mean that he actually has good evidence (in an objective sense). One's worldview is not just a rigid set of propositions but also a complex set of dispositions (evaluative and conduct-guiding, motivational, etc), and this can largely be the result of prior conditioning and inculcation. In a past thread, bbarr already produced some excellent ideas on this topic in which he indicated that such a worldview can become in a sense "self-sustaining". That is, things that are really at best evidentially neutral get interpreted within the framework of one's already conditioned outlook to be good evidence and additional support for that outlook.

Originally posted by vistesd
In terms of mystical experience, there is the experience and then there is interpretation (including what James Austin calls “reflexive interpretation,” and I have called “immediate translation” that can arise in the brain/mind in the midst of the raw experience, as the mind tries translates the non-conceptual experience into conceptual content). It is with ...[text shortened]... ps; I simply find the latter to be more in accord with my own experiences, and more reasonable.

I respect your point of view on this, vistesd, as you know, but the experience which I am referring to I cannot rightly call a "mystical" experience, at least not the map-inspiring variety of which you speak. The sense of God's presence in my experience is, on the contrary, accompanied by an acceptance of the ineffable. The experience's immediate impartation is a pre-conceptual sense of peace, love, encouragement and hope which arises from who knows where. I have this experience often, as I read God's word or during praise and worship; really anytime Jesus Christ is lifted up in my presence. I've become familiar with this experience as being God's presence over the last seven years that I've been a born-again follower of Christ. I couldn't imagine living without it. God's presence is truly my "daily bread."

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]Considering, as you say, that belief formation proceeds via the consideration of evidential reasons, would it then be accurate to assume that the enduring beliefs of Christians are for the most part rational beliefs based on evidence?

This is a very interesting thread. First, I agree with bbarr's opening post, and I do not think solely pragmati 's already conditioned outlook to be good evidence and additional support for that outlook.[/b]

Admittedly so. Simply because I am convinced of the reliability of the Bible's testimony concerning Christ does not mean that the Bible is in fact a reliable source, objectively speaking. Belief does not make it so; the Bible must be true in its own right or not at all.

This begs the question, who ultimately determines the Bible's truth and efficacy? Is it he who has never seriously studied the Bible's contents or practiced its teachings?

One does not require a 'conditioned outlook' in order to put Christ's teachings into practice. All it takes is to give scripture a temporary benefit of the doubt for the purpose of testing the efficacy Christ's teaching. Forgiving injuries, blessing those that curse you and persecute you, entertaining strangers, and doing good to the evil and unthankful -- to put these teachings into practice would go a long way to begin establishing the integrity of Christ's authority, as well as that of the scriptural account.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I respect your point of view on this, vistesd, as you know, but the experience which I am referring to I cannot rightly call a "mystical" experience, at least not the map-inspiring variety of which you speak. The sense of God's presence in my experience is, on the contrary, accompanied by an acceptance of the ineffable. The experience's immediat t. I couldn't imagine living without it. God's presence is truly my "daily bread."

Yes, I forgot we talked about this before at that level. I would say that any emotional content—even peace, love, etc.—is also in a sense “reflexively interpretive.” That does not mean that such feeling responses are “inaccurate”. (For me, the basic feeling tends to be one of harmony and non-separability.) See my remarks on the "We" experience below...

The means of entering into the experience—whether of a particular religious nature or not—need to be distinguished from the experience itself, or else they themselves can trigger a reflexive interpretation. One who uses Christian methods—lectio divina or Centering Prayer or “practicing the presence of Christ”, for example—is no less likely to have that color the experience than one who calls on the Amida Buddha or Ram. The point is simply to be aware of that as well, and to let the ineffable be ineffable.

I would also say that as soon as one thinks “God” or “Christ” or “Shiva” or even “Brahman”, one is, consciously or not, interpreting.

So it is, necessarily, always on that interpretive level that we can talk about agreeing or disagreeing. I have no grounds to agree or disagree with your experience of the ineffable; that doesn’t even, for me, make any sense. I certainly wouldn’t “dis” it. And I have made no bones about the fact that my philosophical non-dualism is also at the level of thinking-mind (albeit informed by my experiences, just as yours inform your conclusions).

To try to put it another way: when the “I-other-thinking-mind” collapses, that does not mean that that the mind is not fully participating in the “We” experience. The experience is characterized by both non-separability and mutuality in that sense. Then we attempt to sort it out...

My point here is not to argue with any interpretations/translations per se; it is merely to point to identifying them as such.

______________________________

Note: I use the word mystical for the experience, not for the map-making activity; I use it to refer to the ineffability.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Admittedly so. Simply because I am convinced of the reliability of the Bible's testimony concerning Christ does not mean that the Bible is in fact a reliable source, objectively speaking. Belief does not make it so; the Bible must be true in its own right or not at all.

This begs the question, who ultimately determines the Bible's truth and efficacy ...[text shortened]... blishing the integrity of Christ's authority, as well as that of the scriptural account.

This begs the question, who ultimately determines the Bible's truth and efficacy? Is it he who has never seriously studied the Bible's contents or practiced its teachings?

Presumably the claims of the bible have objective truth values -- as in, the truth values don't depend constitutively on any observer attitudes. So in that sense nobody "determines" the Bible's truth: as you say,the Bible's claims are either true or they aren't, in their own right. On the other hand, if you are asking what sort of person is in the best position to draw accurate judgments concerning the Bible's veracity (which I think is actually what you are asking); I would think it would have to be someone who, yes, is familiar with the Bible's contents insofar as he has knowledge and understanding of the propositional content of the claims, and someone who can then assign levels of confidence to these propositions that fit the available evidence through cognitive processes that are reliable. It might be that one's ability to do this in an "objective" manner could be compromised by conditioning through their milieu and upbringing (and it could work both ways).

One does not require a 'conditioned outlook' in order to put Christ's teachings into practice.

Right, but I am talking about how interpretation of events and experiences can be influenced by one's social conditioning. Citizen X, who had theism inculcated from birth, studies the beauty and intricacies of some particular aspect of nature and it becomes for him more evidence for his particular brand of creator. My point was just that I would clarify the discussion to reflect that there is a distinction between what one takes as evidence and what actually constitutes evidence. Plus, supposing that a belief is genuinely based on and proportioned to what one takes as evidence, is that sufficient for the belief to be "rational"? I really doubt it. My point was just that I think your assumption (that the enduring beliefs...are for the most part rational beliefs based on evidence) is too strong; I would think the most you could assume is that the belief is based on what the subject takes to be evidence.

Originally posted by bbarr
What say you?

Although you and I cannot understand peoples capacity to apparently form or at least maintain a belief based on pragmatic reasons it is nevertheless frequently claimed by theists that they are capable of doing so. Frequent statement by theists include: "If I am wrong, I do not want to be right" and "I cant believe in a God who is 'such and such' (not to my liking)".
Maybe you should ask knightmeister to clarify his statements along those lines and to the effect that truth is dependent on whether or not it benefits him personally.