5 ms·

Interesting: how can a belief ever be a rational decision? Isn't it irrational by definition?

by Tichy 14y ago

brazzy 14y ago
Look up Pascal's wager. Te postulates are debatable, but it's certainly a rational argument.
- Tichy 14y ago
  He doesn't really show that it is possible to believe something intentionally, though.
  - gnaffle 14y ago
    I think it's certainly possible to make an intentional decision to train/brainwash yourself into believing in something.
- confluence 14y ago
  Pascal's wager is interesting but it makes a core assumption that makes it laughable - namely which God/religion/deity do you bet on? The positive sum that the wager demonstrates in a belief in a God is nullified when you divide by the number of Gods/religions/deities in existence (many thousands/millions). Indeed - if you factor exclusive Gods/religions/deities that condemn separate beliefs - the wager goes negative since holding many beliefs that negate each other, with the addition of trying to believe them all, will cost you much more than just not doing so. This assumes pure "afterlife" expected probabilistic value - I'm ignoring societal pressures which would eliminate this problem of many Gods/afterlife and replace it with "Believe in what we do - or die!". Then it's not Pascal's wager any more - it's believe or die because others force you to.
confluence 14y ago
If you lived in a society that killed/tortured atheists for not believing, it would be extremely rational to (assuming that you value your life over your advertised beliefs), at the very least, pretend that you believe in whatever bullshit people want you to believe.
- Tichy 14y ago
  Pretending to believe is not believing, though.
  - confluence 14y ago
    True. To the outside world it is equivalent though. Furthermore - there's a saying that "believe in it long enough - and you'll think it's true". So you have to be careful with that - sometimes appearances become deceiving (what you show becomes what you are).
pbhjpbhj 14y ago
All things you think you know are ultimately founded on axioms, beliefs. Why do you trust sense-data to be real? Brains in vats, holosuites, yada-yada ...
- WiseWeasel 14y ago
  Reality is that which is practical for us to concern ourselves with. When there is an indication that such a notion might be practical knowledge, then I'll give it some consideration.
  - pbhjpbhj 14y ago
    >Reality is that which is practical for us to concern ourselves with. // By that definition reality is completely subjective which rather plays towards my point. You find the axiomatic basis of scientific understanding to not belong to "practical knowledge". Or that the axiomatic nature of standard logics is not practical? So basically all of physical science, mathematics, logic, ... understanding the epistemological basis of these things is impractical? Because? On such a position theoretical physics would seem to be 'impractical' and not something to concern ourselves [humankind] with - the advances in theoretical physics in the last century or so have worked themselves in to almost all areas of modern 'Western' life.
    - WiseWeasel 14y ago
      Until work in theoretical physics yields practical or verifiable results, I am content to consider it fantasy rather than reality. Not to denigrate those who spend their time on such matters, and the social considerations those people have for their peers might make such pursuits somewhat practical for them, but you cannot expect a randomly selected person to consider such knowledge a part of their reality until it has substantial implications for them. And we do agree that reality is subjective; it's just that if a facet of reality is only perceived by a small fraction of the population, its value is insignificant to most. The value of reality is in its adoption as a foundation for communication.
mseebach2 14y ago
If it makes you happy then it's rational.

Interesting: how can a belief ever be a rational decision? Isn't it irrational by definition?

by Tichy 14y ago

Interesting: how can a belief ever be a rational decision? Isn't it irrational by definition?

brazzy 14y ago

Look up Pascal's wager. Te postulates are debatable, but it's certainly a rational argument.

Tichy 14y ago
He doesn't really show that it is possible to believe something intentionally, though.
- gnaffle 14y ago
  I think it's certainly possible to make an intentional decision to train/brainwash yourself into believing in something.
confluence 14y ago
Pascal's wager is interesting but it makes a core assumption that makes it laughable - namely which God/religion/deity do you bet on? The positive sum that the wager demonstrates in a belief in a God is nullified when you divide by the number of Gods/religions/deities in existence (many thousands/millions). Indeed - if you factor exclusive Gods/religions/deities that condemn separate beliefs - the wager goes negative since holding many beliefs that negate each other, with the addition of trying to believe them all, will cost you much more than just not doing so. This assumes pure "afterlife" expected probabilistic value - I'm ignoring societal pressures which would eliminate this problem of many Gods/afterlife and replace it with "Believe in what we do - or die!". Then it's not Pascal's wager any more - it's believe or die because others force you to.

confluence 14y ago

If you lived in a society that killed/tortured atheists for not believing, it would be extremely rational to (assuming that you value your life over your advertised beliefs), at the very least, pretend that you believe in whatever bullshit people want you to believe.

Tichy 14y ago
Pretending to believe is not believing, though.
- confluence 14y ago
  True. To the outside world it is equivalent though. Furthermore - there's a saying that "believe in it long enough - and you'll think it's true". So you have to be careful with that - sometimes appearances become deceiving (what you show becomes what you are).

pbhjpbhj 14y ago

All things you think you know are ultimately founded on axioms, beliefs. Why do you trust sense-data to be real? Brains in vats, holosuites, yada-yada ...

WiseWeasel 14y ago
Reality is that which is practical for us to concern ourselves with. When there is an indication that such a notion might be practical knowledge, then I'll give it some consideration.
- pbhjpbhj 14y ago
  >Reality is that which is practical for us to concern ourselves with. // By that definition reality is completely subjective which rather plays towards my point. You find the axiomatic basis of scientific understanding to not belong to "practical knowledge". Or that the axiomatic nature of standard logics is not practical? So basically all of physical science, mathematics, logic, ... understanding the epistemological basis of these things is impractical? Because? On such a position theoretical physics would seem to be 'impractical' and not something to concern ourselves [humankind] with - the advances in theoretical physics in the last century or so have worked themselves in to almost all areas of modern 'Western' life.
  - WiseWeasel 14y ago
    Until work in theoretical physics yields practical or verifiable results, I am content to consider it fantasy rather than reality. Not to denigrate those who spend their time on such matters, and the social considerations those people have for their peers might make such pursuits somewhat practical for them, but you cannot expect a randomly selected person to consider such knowledge a part of their reality until it has substantial implications for them. And we do agree that reality is subjective; it's just that if a facet of reality is only perceived by a small fraction of the population, its value is insignificant to most. The value of reality is in its adoption as a foundation for communication.

mseebach2 14y ago

If it makes you happy then it's rational.