Peterson Recommends: "The Will to Believe"

[drumdude]

gemli: "But regarding the question of the real and tangible existence of gods, atheists assert the there is no credible evidence for them other than stories."

You despise stories. History is made up of stories, and historiography is based upon stories. In fact, the words history and story are near etymological relatives.

This is why we know that you despise history.

gemli: "Rational is derived from the word ratio, which means proportion. Rational beliefs must be proportional to the evidence presented for them"

As always, when you raise this issue, I recommend William James's classic essay The Will to Believe.

We'll do it again soon, because you won't read James and you'll make your assertion yet again as if he had never written. Rinse and repeat. Rinse and repeat. Rinse and repeat. Rinse and repeat.

I'm going to do what DCP does when he is researching something - copy and paste striaght from Wikipedia.

"The Will to Believe" is a lecture by William James, first published in 1896, which defends, in certain cases, the adoption of a belief without prior evidence of its truth.

James' doctrine has taken a lot of criticism. In 1907 University of Michigan Professor Alfred Henry Lloyd published "The Will to Doubt" in response, claiming that doubt was essential to true belief.

It seems to me a pity they [pragmatists like James, Schiller] should allow a philosophy so instinct with life to become infected with seeds of death in such notions as that of the unreality of all ideas of infinity and that of the mutability of truth, and in such confusions of thought as that of active willing (willing to control thought, to doubt, and to weigh reasons) with willing not to exert the will (willing to believe).

Instead of admitting that some traditional beliefs are comforting, James argued that "the risk of being in error is a very small matter when compared with the blessing of real knowledge", and implied that those who did not accept religious beliefs were cowards, afraid of risking anything: "It is like a general informing soldiers that it is better to keep out of battle forever than to risk a single wound" (Section VII). James' appeal depends entirely on blurring the distinction between those who hold out for 100 percent proof in a matter in which any reasonable person rests content with, let us say, 90 percent, and those who refuse to indulge in a belief which is supported only by the argument that after all it could conceivably be true

This is why DCP shys away from providing justification for his beliefs. In this example, it's a long debunked essay from the 19th century. I propose a new axiom, in DP's honor: "That which can be asserted with wikipedia, can be dismissed with wikipedia."

[Dr Moore]

Choosing to believe in the absence of proof is one thing.

Choosing to believe in spite of negative proof? That's something else entirely.

The brethren are asking members to do the second one. That is, "choose to believe" they are God's chosen prophets, seers and revelators, in spite of the fact that abundant negative evidence objectively proves that either they lack prophetic, seerific or revelatory powers, or that they willingly choose to ignore the enlightenment afforded by such powers.

[Alphus and Omegus]

Choosing to believe in the absence of proof is one thing.

Choosing to believe in spite of negative proof? That's something else entirely.

The brethren are asking members to do the second one. That is, "choose to believe" they are God's chosen prophets, seers and revelators, in spite of the fact that abundant negative evidence objectively proves that either they lack prophetic, seerific or revelatory powers, or that they willingly choose to ignore the enlightenment afforded by such powers.

Indeed. Lazy theists like Peterson also frequently deliberately elide arguments for deism into arguments for their particular species of religious dogma. The gulf between hypothetical impersonal creator-beings and the specific historical and logical claims of Christianity or Mormonism is actually greater than between atheism and deism. Belief in unknown creators is currently unfalsifiable. Belief in a horny frontier religious scammer is very much falsifiable. Most people who knew of Joseph Smith in his lifetime thought he was not credible. And the intervening years have shown us just how he created Mormonism from other people's ideas and from his own imagination, such as his fictive history of ancient Egypt.

[Rivendale]

gemli: "But regarding the question of the real and tangible existence of gods, atheists assert the there is no credible evidence for them other than stories."

You despise stories. History is made up of stories, and historiography is based upon stories. In fact, the words history and story are near etymological relatives.

This is why we know that you despise history.

gemli: "Rational is derived from the word ratio, which means proportion. Rational beliefs must be proportional to the evidence presented for them"

As always, when you raise this issue, I recommend William James's classic essay The Will to Believe.

We'll do it again soon, because you won't read James and you'll make your assertion yet again as if he had never written. Rinse and repeat. Rinse and repeat. Rinse and repeat. Rinse and repeat.

I'm going to do what DCP does when he is researching something - copy and paste striaght from Wikipedia.

This is why DCP shys away from providing justification for his beliefs. In this example, it's a long debunked essay from the 19th century. I propose a new axiom, in DP's honor: "That which can be asserted with wikipedia, can be dismissed with wikipedia."

I remember him using an infinite sum analogy to provide justification that counter intuitive things can be true. But most justifications are strange references to books and journals.

[Moksha]

In apologetics, anything is possible. "So you might as well believe!"

[Dr Moore]

In apologetics, anything is possible. "So you might as well believe!"

True true.

[Gadianton]

I remember at BYU in my history of phil class, there was a very small excerpt on William James compared to other pragmatists like Pierce in the textbook we used, and our uber-TBM instructor skipped it, remarking that he wasn't important enough to spend time on. lol.

The will to believe is a great thing, look at how well it works with people who lost elections.

[Hagoth]

It seems to me that concepts like the will to believe, and "doubt your doubts," only makes sense within the specific arena to which they are targeted. Step out of the box and they no longer make much sense. Lots of people apply those same attitudes to Flat Earth, UFOs, Bigfoot, etc. Is there a good reason to think that angel-with-gold-plates-ism or book-of-abraham-ism should be treated as superior to those?

I don't have enough evidence to convince me that there were Israelites in ancient America, nor do I still maintain the will to believe it. But what if I do have the will to believe that the Eastern Woodlands mounds were built by Leprechauns? That hypothesis is just as well/poorly supported by evidence.

[huckelberry]

Choosing to believe in the absence of proof is one thing.

Choosing to believe in spite of negative proof? That's something else entirely.

Dr Moore , this seems to me to be an important distinction. I am put off by people who state I must have some specified level of proof before I should believe something.I find there are a variety of situations when I must choose to believe something as a working basis of action even if I am not certain nor have proof. It makes sense to me not to be inflexible but open to learning. It is possible I have chosen to believe something which is incorrect. I should be open to learn that.

I have not read the James essay but from comments about it it appears to be more thoughtful than recommending blindly believing stuff. I gather he does not recommend locking one thought to some authority somewhere.

http://faculty.webster.edu/corbetre/phi ... james.html
from an online essay about the James essay;(making a summery)
You have more to lose by fearing error in the matter of genuine option than you have to gain.
Our will is bound to play a part in the formation of our opinions.
Moral opinions are based on a personal proof of what one wants to believe, and not necessarily willed.
James is asking what we mean by religious hypotheses. He supports one choosing religious hypotheses and gives reasons.
Scepticism, he argues, is not an avoidance of an option. It is an option of a certain particular kind of option.
James does not believe that agnosticism works either. He says they would not be able to consider other truths, which would make the position irrational.
James proposes an abstract and concrete manner of thinking.
Abstract: We have the right to believe at our own risk any hypothesis that is live enough to tempt our will.
Concrete: The freedom to believe can only cover living options which the intellect cannot by itself resolve; and living options never seem absurdities to him who has them to consider.
Conclusion.

James concludes that whether we choose to believe or not to believe, or wait to believe, we choose our own peril, our own fate.
/////
adding my own afterthought.

I think the risk in view is something more encompassing or flexible than the usual treatment of Pascal wager. Belief might open up greater awareness of lifes possibilities and values. Well perhaps not all beliefs. In living with a belief one learns about those diverse possibilities.One might reassess the value of a belief from that lived information.

(I may be bringing up memory of long ago read, Varieties of Religious Experience by James)

[huckelberry]

gemli: "Rational is derived from the word ratio, which means proportion. Rational beliefs must be proportional to the evidence presented for them"

As always, when you raise this issue, I recommend William James's classic essay The Will to Believe.

I'm going to do what DCP does when he is researching something - copy and paste striaght from Wikipedia.



This is why DCP shys away from providing justification for his beliefs. In this example, it's a long debunked essay from the 19th century. I propose a new axiom, in DP's honor: "That which can be asserted with wikipedia, can be dismissed with wikipedia."

The James essay is not some settled truth. It invites opposing or questioning views. Naturally. It is however a more thoughtful essay than simple don't question just believe. I gather it is about situations which matter to people but for which certain evidence is lacking. This makes me wonder about the gemli comment quoted. I have not followed his discussions with Dr Peterson but have noticed he has fans here. He may have worthwhile comments but I am unconvinced that the quoted proposal contains much sense. A ratio is a specific relationship between two measured amounts.I am sure that Peterson sees some reason to believe in God and some amount of objective uncertainty. How to measure that for a ratio? What ratio means what for choice? 1/3? 5/14? 100/8?
I think it is rather weird to equate ratio and rationality. I think one needs reason to decide what to do with a ratio which by itself is more a matter of observation than reason I think.
//////
a second thought.

I suspect James in describing a will to believe he is not describing some odd thing that only some people do. Instead he may be reflecting on something that we all must do one way or the other because we are all obligted to act with far far less than complete knowledge and understanding. It might be worth reflecting on how we do that.