Pragmatic arguments for the belief in God, free will, morality, and more

[melon]

Note: My intention for this thread is to start a discussion, and not so much a debate. I haven't yet come to a conclusion on this, and I'm hoping others will be able to help.

I'll start with an example:

Increased self efficacy (expectation of future success) will, in most cases, lead to higher cognitive performance. (Source (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.); 42 page PDF warning) If a student convinces herself that she is able to succeed on an exam, she will likely perform better on that test whether or not her initial prediction was accurate. Although she can increase the probability of a higher score by studying, it is impossible for the student to be certain of her exam scores before she actually takes the exam and receives the results.

This student may choose to believe that she will perform poorly or excellently on the exam, or she may take an "I don't know" stance regarding her future results. While the latter is the only choice that she can be certain is true, believing that she will perform well will likely increase her exam score. Is it more reasonable for the student to take the "true" stance ("I won't know what my score will be until I've seen the results") or the "useful" stance ("I believe I will perform well on my exam")? For simplicity, let's assume that her belief that she will perform well on her exam will not lead to overconfidence and prevent her from studying.

Now let's assume that the simple act of believing in a god will bring about desirable consequences for a certain individual, whether it be a sense of purpose or motivation, happiness, peace of mind, or so on. Assuming that the existence or nonexistence of god is unknowable, is the most reasonable choice the one that is most useful? Note that this same argument could be made in support of the belief that there is no god, depending on the individual. The belief in a god may bring about negative consequences for some, such as the feeling of worthlessness or insignificance, loss of free will, or so on. Still others (such as myself) might not view either of these two beliefs as being more useful than the other, and instead choose to remain agnostic. (Note that this sort of argument is not the same as, for example, Pascal's Wager, where the usefulness of the belief is dependent on whether it was true.)

The same arguments can be made for any choice in which the options are unknowable, such as the existence of free will or morality. This sort of argument may also work in beliefs which can become self-fulfilling prophecies, such as self-esteem or self-confidence.

In addition to the questions posted above, I have a few more questions for other forum members:


Would you agree with the following statement?
If given a choice between two or more options that are unknowable, it is best to believe that which is most useful.
Why or why not? Or would you alter the statement?


Even if the options in a given decision are knowable, do you think there are any situations when it would still be best to believe the most useful? (If possible, could you give an example?)


Could this mindset (believing the most useful regardless of truth) be damaging to society? (If possible, could you give an example?)


Or, feel free to ignore these questions and bring up points of your own.

[Monte314]

This whole area of thought can be subjected to mathematical analysis (Game Theory), and a lot of research has been done. Remember the movie, "A Beautiful Mind"? It was a semi-biographical work (it took quite a few liberties) about John Nash, who won the Nobel Prize in Economics for providing an approach to a class of such problems.

[stasis]

Would you agree with the following statement?
In principle, depending:


Even if the options in a given decision are knowable, do you think there are any situations when it would still be best to believe the most useful? (If possible, could you give an example?)
What we appear to be talking about here is motivation. A belief that is useful but false isn't a belief that is externally applicable (because it is false). So the only thing it can positively provide is an internal boon of some sort, like motivation or inspiration - a confidence. Perhaps there are other, equally effective ways to motivate oneself than with lies? Consider: would it also be prudent to eat an amphetamine pill before a test? Before each test? Why or why not? But read on:


Could this mindset (believing the most useful regardless of truth) be damaging to society? (If possible, could you give an example?)
Sure. When beliefs become an integral part of personal identity, people understandably become a lot more resistant to shedding them. Critiques of the belief become inseparable from critiquing the sense of self, for the belief composes in part the symbolic sense of self (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), and this provokes a reflexively defensive reaction to that critique. This kind of defensive reaction is mechanistically emotional or pathological and not at all rational, which detaches it from analysis and therefore from the pursuit of understanding.

Since adaptability to the differing challenges of the environment is an empirical predicate of the continued existence of any organism, anything that significantly obstructs the analytical pursuit of the understanding of that environment is potentially damaging to the existence of the human organism and therefore to the existence of society by consequence. Arguably then, while sometimes useful over the short term, believing an untruth is never the most useful course over the long term because it will eventually conflict with new understanding of discovered truth and thus retard understanding in the manner described above.

So the force of belief must become a salient factor: can this belief be discarded when it is rendered obsolete by new understanding? And that would depend upon the nature of the belief; what the belief deals with, what it purports and how it goes about doing so. Is it something "timeless," like one of these anthropomorphic god concepts whose properties define it in such a way that the belief can never be abandoned in favor of new function without somehow first negating it altogether? Is the belief only satellite to identity, a student considering herself 'prepared for test x', or does it compose an enduring facet of identity, as a student considering himself 'prepared for any test'?

When considering this utilitarian principle, think that we should take care to avoid applying macroscopic solutions to problems of microscopy. Flexibility, adaptability, is one of our enabling values. The inevitable expansion of understanding ultimately and necessarily conflicts with mistaken assumptions we've previously made. Any question of usefulness must reconcile with these facts.

[TheLastMohican]

I assume this is the thread you mentioned awhile back when we were debating the Miracle of the Sun.

Would you agree with the following statement?


Why or why not? Or would you alter the statement?


I agree with that statement, but its application gets bogged down in definitions and is limited due to the nature of belief (see below).


Even if the options in a given decision are knowable, do you think there are any situations when it would still be best to believe the most useful? (If possible, could you give an example?)

Yes...provided the belief is temporary. Plenty of discoveries and other beneficial events have occurred because of erroneous beliefs. It is also for the best that those beliefs were eventually abandoned, however. Consider the discovery of Pluto. The only reason it was found was because it was erroneously believed, based on faulty calculations, that Uranus' orbit was being affected by a massive "Planet X," which was searched for in the predicted location. It turned out that Pluto was much to small to cause the discrepancy, which was later found to be nonexistent. Yet it was probably for the best that Lowell believed what was untrue, because it led to the discovery of our former tenth planet, and gave a hint of the Kuiper Belt.

Another famous (and more dramatic) example is Columbus' discovery of the New World. He grossly underestimated the length of his proposed journey to India, and if not for the Americas blocking his way, he would have either met a bad end in the middle of the ocean, or financial ruin when he returned home. If he had been a better scholar and taken a hint from Eratosthenes, he would have realized his peril and cancelled the trip. Fortunately he remained ignorant, got lucky, and provided Europe with a couple of brand new continents to inhabit. (This was perhaps more unfortunate for the natives.)

Currently many people believe that aliens frequent our planet, and therefore there must be a way to thwart the space-time continuum for interstellar travel...
I rest my case.


Could this mindset (believing the most useful regardless of truth) be damaging to society? (If possible, could you give an example?)

If it was more damaging than any other option, it would not be the most useful. By its own definition, it must be beneficial.
__________________________________________________ ________

Now, all this is fine and dandy, but it should be noted that belief is not a choice. It is impossible to choose to believe something when you do not think there is enough evidence to support belief in it. What a person believes is truth depends solely on the input that person has received, combined with his ability to glean conclusions from it. I can choose to be neither a 1 nor a 7 on Dawkins' scale of belief, regardless of my opinions about which belief results in greater contentment. The fact that I would be consciously choosing what to believe means that it is not genuine belief, only a preference for what I would like to believe. I think that makes all of this moot.

[stasis]

The fact that I would be consciously choosing what to believe means that it is not genuine belief, only a preference for what I would like to believe. I think that makes all of this moot.
I think this is semantic play. I don't like the relegation of "genuine belief" to something outside of rational analysis; that is, something not consciously pursued and deliberately elected. That definition of "genuine" suggests to me an inaccessible and unassailable epistemology, where 'true' understanding is somehow received from 'elsewhere' instead of specifically established by human thought.

Goddamn ENTP. Ti > Ne!

[Tocsin]

Could this mindset (believing the most useful regardless of truth) be damaging to society? (If possible, could you give an example?)

There was a time in history when it was believed that dark skinned people from Africa were not "human" in the same respect that light skinned Europeans were.

The application of this belief was very "useful," because it meant that these "subhumans" could be bought and sold (as one would do with horses and other livestock), and used as cheap slave labor, making the slave owners rich.

So, there seems to be two options.

Either there are "useful" beliefs which can be damaging to society.

Or the beliefs and institutions of slavery are not damaging to society.





Tocsin added to this post, 6 minutes and 49 seconds later...

Even beyond the institution of slavery, their are dozens of similar classes of "useful" beliefs; national or racial superiority, manifest destiny, lebensraum, and the like, which are damaging to humanity - or at least the victims of these doctrines - even if not to the particular society that embraced them.

[melon]

I assume this is the thread you mentioned awhile back when we were debating the Miracle of the Sun.

It is, but I hesitated to post it because I wasn't sure that it was a great argument after all. It makes for an interesting discussion though.


Yes...provided the belief is temporary. Plenty of discoveries and other beneficial events have occurred because of erroneous beliefs. It is also for the best that those beliefs were eventually abandoned, however. Consider the discovery of Pluto. The only reason it was found was because it was erroneously believed, based on faulty calculations, that Uranus' orbit was being affected by a massive "Planet X," which was searched for in the predicted location. It turned out that Pluto was much to small to cause the discrepancy, which was later found to be nonexistent. Yet it was probably for the best that Lowell believed what was untrue, because it led to the discovery of our former tenth planet, and gave a hint of the Kuiper Belt.

Another famous (and more dramatic) example is Columbus' discovery of the New World. He grossly underestimated the length of his proposed journey to India, and if not for the Americas blocking his way, he would have either met a bad end in the middle of the ocean, or financial ruin when he returned home. If he had been a better scholar and taken a hint from Eratosthenes, he would have realized his peril and cancelled the trip. Fortunately he remained ignorant, got lucky, and provided Europe with a couple of brand new continents to inhabit. (This was perhaps more unfortunate for the natives.)

The difference between these examples and the point I was trying to get at is that these people genuinely thought that what they believed was the truth (and didn't purposefully remain ignorant, as far as I know). These are good examples of useful (at the time) beliefs that were later revealed to be untrue, but my question is: Is it ever reasonable to hold a belief simply because the belief itself is useful?




If it was more damaging than any other option, it would not be the most useful. By its own definition, it must be beneficial.

A belief can be useful for an individual(s) while damaging for society on the whole. As a crude example, consider that the belief in a certain religion is comforting for a specific group of individuals. Unfortunately for society, this religion encourages its followers to abandon rational thought, treat certain ethnic groups as animals, and donate large sums of money to fast food restaurants. While the belief in the religion itself (arguably) wouldn't be damaging to society, acting on the belief would be.


Now, all this is fine and dandy, but it should be noted that belief is not a choice.

Well, I disagree with you here. I would say that, through time and repitition, deluding yourself into holding a "genuine" belief is fairly easy, whether or not the belief is true. Repression, along with many other psychological defense mechanisms, might be considered common examples of discarding true beliefs in favor of more useful ones.

There was a time in history when it was believed that dark skinned people from Africa were not "human" in the sae respect that light skinned Europeans were.

The application of this belief was very "useful," because it meant that these "subhumans" could be bought and sold (as one would do with horses and other livestock), and used as cheap slave labor, making the slave owners rich.

So, there seems to be two options.

Either there are "useful" beliefs which can be damaging to society.

Or the beliefs and institutions of slavery are not damaging to society.

Tocsin added to this post, 6 minutes and 49 seconds later...

Even beyond the institution of slavery, their are dozens of similar classes of "useful" beliefs; national or racial superiority, manifest destiny, lebensraum, and the like, which are damaging to humanity - or at least the victims of these doctrines - even if not to the particular society that embraced them.

I agree with you in the sense that these beliefs were considered useful by many who held them and were damaging to society. On the other hand, being beneficial to society could be considered as "useful" in an altruistic sense and a valid reason to hold a similar belief. For example, others throughout history might have held the view that all races should be treated as equal, not necessarily because they believed it to be true, but because holding this view would likely reduce conflict (particularly if the holder of the belief was a leader of some sort or a large group of individuals).

Excellent posts so far. I would reply to stasis's post, but I can't think of anything I could possibly add to it at this point.

[TheLastMohican]

I think this is semantic play. I don't like the relegation of "genuine belief" to something outside of rational analysis; that is, something not consciously pursued and deliberately elected. That definition of "genuine" suggests to me an inaccessible and unassailable epistemology, where 'true' understanding is somehow received from 'elsewhere' instead of specifically established by human thought.

It is arguably true that we indirectly choose what to believe by choosing what evidence to research, since evidence forms belief. My point is that it is impossible (for me, at least) to actually believe something simply as a result of deciding to for any reason other than sound evidence. Belief is not a conscious choice. It is an automatic result of input, and cannot be manufactured on a whim.

Goddamn ENTP. Ti > Ne!

(Hey-presto, he thinks I'm an ENTP. Talk about brainwashing.)

The difference between these examples and the point I was trying to get at is that these people genuinely thought that what they believed was the truth (and didn't purposefully remain ignorant, as far as I know). These are good examples of useful (at the time) beliefs that were later revealed to be untrue, but my question is: Is it ever reasonable to hold a belief simply because the belief itself is useful?

Do you mean a hypothetical in which a person actually knows that his belief is erroneous, yet believes it anyway because it seems useful? I can't get past the impossibility of that. It's self-contradictory. How can one have the proper psychological effects if he is still aware that what he is trying to believe is false? How are you defining belief in this case?


A belief can be useful for an individual(s) while damaging for society on the whole.


Oh, then I do think it could be damaging. I thought you were referring to the belief of a whole society and its consequences, not the belief of an individual. I think it is quite obvious that it can be damaging ot society while being useful for an individual. It just has to be a belief that causes the individual to benefit himself at the expense of others, and such beliefs are rampant.

Well, I disagree with you here. I would say that, through time and repitition, deluding yourself into holding a "genuine" belief is fairly easy, whether or not the belief is true. Repression, along with many other psychological defense mechanisms, might be considered common examples of discarding true beliefs in favor of more useful ones.


That still takes time to accomplish, and by the time you have brainwashed yourself, you are no longer thinking about the reality of the situation. At some point, you no longer have a choice. My point remains that it is impossible to wilfully switch beliefs with no change in input. Deluding yourself requires an immersion into a belief, and an extreme skewing of reality. It can be done, but only by manipulating the "evidence" that you base your opinions on.

[zibber]

I don't like to base myself on appeals to consequences (more of a deontological guy, I suppose), and I don't think I physically could bring myself to believe something I think to be insane, based on the effect that belief would have on me. I see the appeal, though.

1. Would you agree with the following statement?
Quote:
If given a choice between two or more options that are unknowable, it is best to believe that which is most useful.
Why or why not? Or would you alter the statement?
I take information that's presented to me and evaluate it in as sober a way as possible. I'd like to hear some examples from you, as I have a hard time coming up with one.

(I'd like to say this, by the way: be careful not to posit atheism and theism as two of these unknowable options. We can go through the whole discussion ten thousand times, but for practical reasons let's assume theism is "belief" and atheism is "not belief". In that case the question would be whether it's best to believe something undisprovable but possibly beneficial or not to.)

2. Even if the options in a given decision are knowable, do you think there are any situations when it would still be best to believe the most useful? (If possible, could you give an example?)
I frankly don't understand this. If possible? How is that possible? Hypnosis? It might be best in a utilitarian sense, and that's not an invalid stance by any means, but how?!

3. Could this mindset (believing the most useful regardless of truth) be damaging to society? (If possible, could you give an example?)
That wholly depends on your point of view. If you're a Pascal's Wager loving, ignorance is bliss kind of guy, you'd rightfully support organised religion, any state-funded activity promoting useful/beneficial beliefs, etc. If you're a Richard Dawkins reading, straight edge realist, you'd rightfully promote (mental) sobriety and thought processes unrestricted by worries about their usefulness. Is intellectual ignorance damaging? Depends on your definitions. I don't think there's one clear answer to this, although I'm mostly in the latter camp (although I get high on the daily to soothe my nihilism).

TLM brings up an interesting point: when you already believe something that's clearly beneficial to you personally, is it reasonable to avoid seeking evidence for the contrary? That's a very possible scenario.

[NobodysLamb]

For me these questions youre posing hinge upon whether you mean beliefs that unknowingly incorrect but more useful, or "beliefs" (if you could even call them that which a few here seem to think you couldnt) which are known to be incorrect and are willfully chosen to be followed. I see this as important because, supposing that the accuracy of the belief is unknown, to ask whether or not it is proper or best to believe this as opposed to something else is irrelevant, because it is simply what they "believe". For example as mentioned before, it was for some, beneficial that Columbus believed the route he took would lead him to asia for obvious reasons, however to believe this was not something he chose to do, it was simply something that resulted from his interpretation of what was known about the world in their time (obviously this isnt something i could really know, but it seems reasonable). So it seems to me in this case there is nothing to question because it could not have been another way. I think i having this problem with your questions because of your use of belief.

I would have to say that to chose to believe something which one knows to be contradictory to the truth is impossible. What is possible is to knowingly perpetuate an idea which is untrue, in the form of truth to others. For example, suppose (as i do) there is no way to definitively prove whether or not there is a god, and there may be a priest who accepts this as fact and knows it to be true himself. This priest will preach to and assure his congregation of the undeniable existence of god. However, no matter how frequently he tells his congregation that god most definitely, as long as he knows that the only truth is uncertainty, he will never TRULY believe in what he is preaching. In my opinion its just not possible.

In short i think what youre questioning, in the literal sense, would not happen. People dont believe what ever it is that they do because of the consequences of that belief (which is very similar to pascals wager i think), people, in my experience, have beliefs due to upbringing, realizations resulting from experience, and a need to fill a very uncomfortable void present in all of us during at least some point in our lives. The consequences of the belief dont become relevant untill the belief is already present and the consequences already occuring.

I hope my answer was at least somewhat satisfying. If ive had any misunderstandings with your questions please let me know.

[stasis]

deciding to for any reason other than sound evidence
But a person chooses to decide that evidence is sound or unsound. A person does so according to some set of criteria or means that he or she has chosen to accept as being an effective or meaningful dialectic. In melon's scenario, the dialectic being used would revolve around the concept of meaning as applied utility instead of the concept of meaning as objective entity. Evidence simply does not, as goes the cliché, speak for itself. Evidence is not alive and conscious. People do the speaking. It has to be interpreted, which means quantified, contrasted and arranged, in order to facilitate an understanding. A person can legitimately choose to interpret evidence in a wide variety of ways, but he must analytically qualify it in one way or another in order to understand it. He chooses the way.

The notion that we can not consciously and deliberately choose to "genuinely" believe something requires that genuine belief, or actual understanding, is a thing not subject to human reasoning; it must require as much, because the process of reasoning is a conscious and deliberate exercise. This is to describe an epistemological model wherein understanding is spontaneously (mystically) received from some external source that you have not defined.

It's like telling me you have no control over your own thinking and it does what it wants independently of your consciousness.

[blueback]

It's like telling me you have no control over your own thinking and it does what it wants independently of your consciousness.
Well, a great deal of the control we exert over our body and mind is unconscious. Wether it's in different areas of the brain (lower level) or actually done in the spinal column we have no direct control over the signals. I would actually argue that our consciousness is more of a senior voting member of a governing body, rather than some sort of all powerful dictator.

There is a lot of research to support the idea that people often make a decision before they are even aware they are thinking and that the rational part of the brain only becomes active afterwards, to figure out why the decision was made. Just try talking to an average person for an hour and keep a straight face when you try to say they are rational.