BELIEF is not complicated. (Introduction)

by dhw, Friday, May 30, 2008, 13:54 (6019 days ago) @ Cary Cook

Cary's point 1): "Assuming there is no afterlife, then the value of this life is purely a matter of emotional economics. Maximum pleasure is the only sensible value. Ethics are irrelevant unless they produce pleasure..." - In your very useful "concept clarifier" you define pleasure as "a part or subset of emotion or a category of mind in itself when stimulated sensually". (Why not intellectually as well?) It is also the "reason why good is good and bad is bad", and it is "that part of the self which causes desire to exist". Many of these concepts are cross-referenced. On this general basis, I agree with you. However, I would say exactly the same if there IS an afterlife. The proviso for me in both cases is that the pleasure should do no harm to oneself or other people. A just afterlife would only be a deterrent if one's pleasures were based on something harmful to oneself or to others. This brings in ethics, and I would argue that harmful actions will only produce (subjectively) ethical pleasure if the person concerned is, at least to a degree, a masochist or sadist. Otherwise, the pleasure principle applies whether there is or is not an afterlife. - Point 2: "What a person believes (1 or 2) may be complicated. The concept, belief, itself is not complicated once you recognize it as 2 separate concepts erroneously called by the same name." - The two concepts are judgment of probability (which you call an involuntary act) and trust (which you say is a voluntary act of will). You also say that "in practice, these concepts usually overlap." - I have to say that I am struggling with all of this, but I do want clarification, and to get it I have to explain to you why I am struggling. If this is frustrating for you, I can only apologize and hope that you will be patient. Here are my problems. - 1) I don't see why judgment of probability is involuntary. I agree with George Jelliss and David Turell that there has to be a conscious and ongoing study, which may even change one's views as new discoveries are made. Perhaps you are only referring to the point at which the individual's conscious research reaches its moment of (temporary) decision: George decides that a supreme power is improbable, and David decides that it is probable, so do you mean that there is an involuntary mechanism tipping the balance? That, of course, raises all kinds of questions about why we make our decisions. - 2) My argument against trust as a voluntary (you call it "willful" in the clarifier) act is almost the converse. Many people are brought up to believe in one god or another, and so regardless of the counter-arguments that are thrown at them they will stick to what it is inbred, i.e. there is a god; or their god is the right one. It has become a gut feeling, and may even go against judgment of probability. Can you consciously will yourself to think something is true even though reason tells you it's not? - 3) If the concepts usually overlap (and I certainly agree that they do), the degree of separateness is itself a problem. If I say that Mr X has researched the subject thoroughly, has concluded that the existence of God is probable, and therefore believes 1) and 2) that God exists, then I agree with you, belief is not complicated. But if 1) and 2) are in opposition, how do we separate them yet reach one conclusion? To be specific: you think it improbable that God is just and that there is an afterlife, and you say the Bible is irrelevant to you. But you claim to be a Christian and bet your money, ass and soul on there being an afterlife and a just God. I can see that the first = judgment of probability and the second = trust. What I can't see is how you can have both categories of belief at the same time ... unless your trust is an involuntary act overriding the voluntary judgment of probability as I've described it, which doesn't seem to be the case. - Once again, my apologies if I'm missing the point, but let me assure you that clarification would be very helpful, as the discussion is highly pertinent to my own situation: you have been able to take a decision, and I have not.