Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
PHILOSOPHY - Epistemology: The Will to Believe [HD]
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 сер 2024
- Thomas Donaldson (Stanford University) asks whether it is moral to believe something even when you have no evidence that it is true. He discusses a classic debate on that subject, between philosophers William James and William Clifford.
Help us caption & translate this video!
amara.org/v/EsXx/
![PHILOSOPHY - Kant: On Metaphysical Knowledge [HD]](/img/n.gif)
The problem with all the supporting arguments for James is that all of them, in some way, rely on evidence. The man knows, from evidence provided by friends or other members of society, that being relaxed will help him, so he can establish a positive feedback loop of "I think it will go well, as I will pretend to be relaxed, whereupon it will begin to go well, ergo I will become relaxed." The story with him needing a religious belief in order to aid his own psyche is in a similar boat, where he could very easily say "I think I will be happy, so I will pretend to be happy, whereupon I will begin to become happy, ergo I am now happy," and cut out god.
Also, the problem with Pascal's wager is that you could also make the argument that, one, if a higher power exists, it is unknown whether or not it would reward or punish you for your belief, and two, there's a cost associated with blind faith, in that you will live your life in a way that isn't necessarily the best way to live in our actual universe.
Makes sense. People believe because they are rewarded for their beliefs, even if the reward is only a psychological benefit.
these videos are helping me through my philosophy class so thank you
James' theory on managing risk is reminiscent of Pascal's wager. I wonder if anyone caught that too.
It is Pascal wager!
Hi Jeremy,
Thanks! We're happy you like our videos!
Make sure to subscribe, because we regularly update our video library. Be sure to also follow us on Facebook!
If you can falsely convince yourself over dinner that your date likes you and that's OK, can you also not falsely convince yourself later on that evening that she consented to having sex with you? How can a path of belief be moral and good if it doesn't always lead to moral and good outcomes?
I think this is where weighing the risks comes in. If you're wrong about the date then you just have a bad date, so not a big deal. But If you're wrong about the consent, then you have a rape at your hands.
I think the arguments both by and against Clifford presented are not valid. The man going on the date isn't using belief to counter evidence to the contrary. No evidence exists that his date does not like him, in fact, she obviously liked him enough to agree to go on the date with him, so some evidence she likes him exists. She doesn't know him well enough to have formed a full opinion about whether or not she likes him, which is why she's going on the date.
The ship owner has evidence that the ship is not seaworthy. Both arguments are based on actual evidence and then shoehorned into applying to beliefs. Neither does. The ship owner is choosing to disbelieve his evidence, the dating man is using the little bit of evidence he has to hope that all other evidence he collects will confirm the little bit he has.
Your suggestion that if he believes that his date likes him it's "better for everyone" also lacks evidence. How can you suggest his date will be happy just because he's more relaxed. What if she's not relaxed? What if she felt similarly and was hoping he would be fumbling for the right word just like she was? Why do you assume that one of the participants on the date feeling less stress is "better for everyone"?
I agree there is nothing morally wrong with hoping for the best and pretending you have evidence it is in a situation where no one's life is in danger. It is morally wrong have gut feeling that something is wrong, in a situation where someone's life is in danger, and ignore that feeling and not search for evidence.
The statement that "If you refrain from forming a believe, you miss out on a truth" is also wrong. A truth needs sufficient evidence to support it. If something is true, then evidence will support it and you'll be lead to the truth eventually. Definition of truth that I'm using here:
www.realclearscience.com/articles/2012/05/17/what_do_we_mean_by_scientific_truth_106273.html
If the "truth" you're missing out on is simply a personal truth, such as "I like chicken more than steak". There there isn't a logical or scientific means to prove or disprove that statement. There is also nothing really to be gained or lost, it's just an opinion.
The entirety of your argument seems to be, "It's not morally wrong to believe in God if it gets you passed your fears". I agree with that statement, but only up to the point where it starts effecting others. If your belief makes you OK with denying other people rights, preventing them from believing what they want, or denying them services because the God you believe in thinks something is wrong, then you're back onto the morally wrong side of the argument.
+Bret Larson You said every single thing that I was gonna say!
+Bret Larson Question regarding your last paragraph... Wasn't it morally wrong in the first place then? Wasn't the ability to accept a false belief without evidence (and them, you and I accepting that as morally okay), also a direct cause leading to those same beliefs coming back to haunt us exactly because we accepted it as morally okay in the first place? By saying it's moral, we're literally saying "it's moral to lie to yourself". How do we then say, it's immoral to use that belief? What you're really saying, it seems to me, is "it's okay to lie to yourself, as long as you don't really believe it."
I guess on one level it's right (eg. it's okay to believe someone should be murdered as long as you don't do anything to facilitate that murder), but would murder ever happen unless someone first believed it to be okay? You must believe to achieve :)
***** Not everyone has to lie to themselves to believe in God though; sometimes, they just don't care that there is insufficient evidence.
+Bret Larson I can tell you that women do not necessarily like the guys they agree to see on dates, lol. Perhaps, in this case, it was out of pity. Been there, done that garbage.
Where's your evidence that a truth needs evidence? You just say so, huh?
I think there is a difference between having a belief, legitimately, without evidence.. and having a known false belief to mitigate a circumstance.
issue with the shy dater example is this.
It would make more sense and he would have more success if he objectively said my issue is that up get nervous, and if I just could calm myself down then my date would go well. knowing his problem he could then say she will like me without needing sufficient evidence. However if he goes into the date saying oh she'll like me regardless and then makes an ass of himself on the date the date is then more likely to go bad when he makes no attempt to mend the "broken ship" that is his dating habits.
The problem with saying that it is ethically wrong to believe in things that are not based on evidence is that it pressuposes the existence of a ethics based on evidence. But it seems to me that there is no ethics that does not start from axiomatic presuppositions that don't have evidence for.
The most famous person who defends the existence of an evidence-based ethics is Sam Harris and his argument basically goes like this:
All sentient beings avoid suffering,
Therefore, we ought to reduce suffering in the aggregate.
But note that the conclusion does not follow from the premise, this argument would only be valid if we add the following premise:
All sentient beings avoid suffering,
We ought to reduce the aggregate amount of what all sentient beings avoid,
Therefore, we ought to reduce suffering in the aggregate.
But what is the evidence for the proposition "We ought to reduce the aggregate amount of what all sentient beings avoid"? If you accept it, you will already be believing something without having any evidence for.
The strength of belief I have in something is based of my evaluation of the evidence I have available to me. As Hume said: “The wise man…proportions his beliefs to the evidence.” If it is a complete guess, I am forced to suspend judgement. How can you will to believe something?
+bodyboarding06 The same way you can will to believe anything, really. It's a matter of wanting to, recognizing values behind it, and rationalizing the notion on a conceptual level. The simple existence of opinion in the world asserts that so long as a concept is logically sourced to some degree, as long as we can wrap our heads around it, we can quite whole-heartedly attach ourselves to that concept.
I'm sure you practice this, even if you don't always recognize it. Any works of fiction you may enjoy invariably call upon you to perform what's known as "suspension of disbelief" which is exactly what it sounds like- Your mind temporarily ignores the fact that something is completely impossible for the sake of investment and entertainment in a narrative.
For some people, Religion is that narrative, and it doesn't matter if they have evidence or not; They'd suspend their belief regardless, because it's a narrative that brings them satisfaction.
+Dastardly Distaste is it too unreasonable that more of us should use language such as 'I think' or 'I hope' more often? I feel that the misuse of language has a lot to do with modern faith and more importantly misrepresentation of scientific theories. I don't believe in evolution or an afterlife. I know evolution is true, I think natural selection is one of the most substantiated mechanisms and I hope that there is something after I die. A scientifically sound statement that completely avoids the confusing use of terms such as believe or faith which imply the acceptance of a statement in absence of sufficient supporting data.
Dastardly Distaste LOL you can't be serious. Enjoying a novel does not mean you believe in it, even momentarily. By your logic you can disbelieve in gravity if you desired to and saw value in it. I guarantee nobody could actually disbelieve in gravity once they understood what it is.
Okay. You can choose not to believe me if you'd like- I'm not posting my opinion, simply reciting to you relevant information that I've read. I'd recommend looking at some psychological and neurological literature both, to explain why such things are so. Also, yes, by my logic if a person had powerful enough suspension of disbelief, they -could- realistically disbelieve in gravity once they understood what it was. That's not really so ridiculous, when you consider what the human mind is capable of conjuring for itself.
There's an implied question here - is belief a choice?
As I see it, it's not. You're either convinced of something or not.
That's when standards of evidence come into play. But how can one, by themselves, improve the reliability of their own method without a modicum of the very same tool they're seeking?
Edit: typo
really interesting point.
Is someone saying they believe in god because purely because they would be happier this way truly a believer of god?
it seems to me that this is purely being ignorant of the truth
ignorance can beget confidence and bliss
Is this sufficient reason to be ignorant?
Or you can be skeptical and be somewhere in between. Stop viewing reality in black and white when it's many shades of grey
James argument about the potential risks vs rewards falls apart the same way Pascals Wager falls apart, the belief in his god excludes belief in the others so unless he believed in all gods which he could not then there is no real reward. He uses god as a placebo effect
Cringe atheist
No… belief in his god negates not believing in any God, the former is further from the latter then it is from believing in another God
"Pascal wrong because monopolytheism"
*sigh*
Concerning "The Shy Dater" story example, there is a fundamental flaw in the reasoning which undermines the entire argument.
The author of the video claims that Rupert, the man going on the date, has *no evidence* and *no reason* to believe that the girl going on the date with him is interested, and therefore believes it advantageous to assume this on faith given his past experiences.
However, there is compelling evidence that the girl is interested, namely that she's going on a date with him, and women generally don't go on dates with men in which they have no interest.
Thus the argument is fundamentally flawed because Rupert does not have to believe on faith that the girl is interested, given that he has solid evidence that she is. Even if it were a blind date, a speed date, or some other scenario where the woman did not know Rupert beforehand, she's still obviously interested in meeting him and getting to know him, hence the claim that there is *no evidence* that she's interested is faulty, and the argument that faith is needed to assume this falls apart.
What if it were a blind date though?
There's lots of similar cases where one can argue that an unsubstantiated belief can be good. Say, belief in the stability of currency (so there is no run on the banks), Plato's noble lie to preserve social harmony, etc.
"Women generally don't go on dates with men in which they have no interest."
Not true. Women enjoy wasting men's time.
Adam Hamby hahaha good thinking
You are right in saying that the women must have some interest if she is going on the date. But you are not accounting for Rupert's perspective. See for Rupert, he doesn't think she is interested just by the fact of her showing up - which is quite normal for a shy and anxious type. So for him the belief that she is interested just for the sake of him feeling better about it is justified, for him at least.
There are several problems with William Clifford's argument. For one thing, it's an overly broad conclusion. For another, the story involves not a lack of evidence on the ship owner's part, but the unwillingness to look for the evidence, either for or against, his fear. It's not a case where there was no evidence and his only choice was to believe or not believe. This, coupled with the fact that he was running a business, makes him negligent in his duties as a ship owner, and legally and morally reponsible for the deaths of his passengers. So his story was largely irrelevant to the question at hand.
This does not mean that the opposing view is right, merely that Clifford chose a bad example for his argument.
To further try to answer the question, is belief without evidence immoral, I'm not quite sure how to proceed. If one sees a fundamental value in truth, then it would seem that it's more of an epistemology issue, not a moral issue: you should only believe in something if there is sufficient evidence for the belief. Belief in something without evidence is not immoral, but merely irrational.
Or one might take a more consequentialist approach: it's not the belief itself that is immoral, but the actions one takes based upon a belief that could be immoral. If you decide to punish someone because of an unsupported belief, or because someone else does not have that unsupported belief, then you may well be engaging in immoral behavior.
I guess I would have to say that belief itself is not immoral; it's only the actions we take that are moral or immoral. Nonetheless, it seems we must be wary of unsupported beliefs because they can lead to immoral action.
Hi Eric Masters,
Thank you so much for subscribing to our channel! We're glad that you think our channel is interesting. Please help spread the word.
Meanwhile, be sure to "like" our Facebook page (which is on our channel), if you haven't already!
Pessimists: _“If there is no evidence then I can’t believe”_
Optimist: _“Hope springs internal. The possibility is awe inspiring”_
Realist: _“I have no answers”_
Hi Jonathon Nguyen,
Thanks for your positive feedback! We do try to present quality content in an unbiased manner for the audience to appreciate and interpret themselves.
Be sure to subscribe to our channel if you haven't already. And please spread the word about us as we are new and trying to reach all people interested in philosophy.
Framing this problem in terms of morality was a terrible choice, as is unnecessary and distracting to the validity of the argument. The matter is if belief without evidence is RATIONAL. Acting as if something is true knowing it isn't doesn't constitute a belief. So self deception like James described is obviously not the kind of belief in question. Also, Pascal's wager is an invalid argument to believe in God because we can arbitrarily propose an action we should take that would grant us infinite happiness, and if we don't take it bring us finite happiness and then no matter the level of doubt we may have about the proposal, the rational choice would be to act on this action. The problem is this logic applies regardless of the action, and there may be unlimited many proposals as such with different or contradicting actions. So Pascal's wager argument for belief without evidence simply because of what's possible cannot be valid.
My issue is, we seem to talk a lot about the need to have evidence without actually understanding what that is. I've seen this issue from both spectrum (atheist and theist). People putting forward their facts and faiths, saying that is somehow evidence. If you take their faiths and facts together, they'll not be able to stand trial in court.
My biggest issue is that we have a lot of people who don't know what constitute as evidence. May we have a video on that 1st, before anything else...
Don't mind that, because firstly we need to have a coherent definition of what is actually meant by "god". As far as I'm concerned they're just sounds/phonemes without any clear meaning behind them. So how can I have any evidence for something of which I don't even know what it's supposed to be?
Interesting ... It was not the choice to believe without "sufficient evidence" that caused the tragedy of the deaths of those aboard the ship, but the choice to discount evidence that the ship needed repairs (patterns of required ship repair, the current state of dis-repair of the boat, history of ships in disrepair sinking, etc.), an either deliberate or neglectful disregard for common knowledge about ship maintenance, and belief based on what he preferred to be true, not belief despite a lack of evidence.
One problem with Clifford's conclusions (as represented in this video, I'm not familiar with his original work) is that there is no precise definition of "moral" and no precise definition of "sufficient." Both of these are subjective descriptors. Whether or not they apply depends on the significance given to them by the individual using them.
My opinion: belief is not a moral issue. Morality is a value judgement defined by one's beliefs. Mere belief or disbelief of something cannot be moral or immoral. It's probably a poor analogy, but the way I see things, it's like determining the market value of a US dollar in terms of US dollars. I believe there is a philosophical term for that, but I'm not as versed in philosophical vernacular as would efficiently serve my purpose here.
+Ammon Nelson This, right here. Morality is only considered when one acts on the belief (or disbelief). The belief itself has no morality or immorality.
+Quaght Then we agree. belief is not a moral issue. The morality of it is based on a particular belief. Any moral standard has to be based on a presupposition of a universal standard of morality. This has to be either arbitrary, or defined by someone's authority.
William Clifford's "The Ethics of Belief" is quite a interesting read and it is not long, so it is highly recommended. It's easily available on the web.
"Morality is only considered when one acts on the belief (or disbelief)."
Clifford responds directly to this objection in The Ethics of Belief. "No man holding a strong belief on one side of a question, or even wishing to hold a belief on one side, can investigate it with such fairness and completeness as if he were really in doubt and unbiased; so that the existence of a belief not founded on fair inquiry unfits a man for the performance of this necessary duty. ... He who truly believes that which prompts him to an action has looked upon the action to lust after it, he has committed it already in his heart. If a belief is not realized immediately in open deeds, it is stored up for the guidance of the future."
Clifford fairly points out: "No real belief, however trifling and fragmentary it may seem, is ever truly insignificant; it prepares us to receive more of its like, confirms those which resembled it before, and weakens others; and so gradually it lays a stealthy train in our inmost thoughts, which may someday explode into overt action, and leave its stamp upon our character forever."
The article goes on about how a wrongly held belief can be harmful even if it doesn't lead to wrong actions.
Ammon Nelson:
...perceived universal.
More than likely, it's just cultural or personal.
Ammon Nelson, you make some good points here, especially about the ship captain not believing despite lack of evidence but rather ignoring evidence to the contrary. I also agree with you that belief as such is not a moral issue. However, I wouldn't say it is unrelated. Beliefs often inform actions which carry moral significance. But it is the actions, IMO, that are subject to value judgment, not the beliefs themselves. However, I digress. I do have an argument against belief without evidence on epistemological grounds. If we accept that it's valid to believe something is true without evidence, then how do we evaluate the truth status of beliefs? Let's say we accept that any belief is acceptable so long as it has not been disproven. That seems like something a proponent of belief without evidence would agree to. This criterion, though, inevitably leads to contradictions. If we accepted as true anything we wished that has not been disproven, we might end up believing that only purple swans live in the Andromeda galaxy AND that only green monkeys live in the Andromeda galaxy. Neither belief has been disproven, but they are mutually exclusive. Therefore, they cannot both be true. If we arrived at both beliefs, we would believe something we know cannot be true. But if we know it cannot be true, by definition, we do not believe it. Contradiction. Ergo, accepting beliefs that have not been disproven is not a reliable criterion, by itself, for getting at the truth. Positive evidence is much more likely to get you to the truth. All of this assumes that "finding truth" is what one is doing when deciding what to believe. However, there is a good case to be made that that is not most people's primary motivation. Anyway, those are a few thoughts off the top of my head. I hope you don't mind the rambling.
The video very heavily misrepresents James` view, I highly recommend reading the essay itself.
Can you help me with a link to it
The last line is problematic: One should believe in God, because of all the benefits that follow from it.
BiG: Belief in God Bn: Benefits
If one has BiG, then one will receive Bn.
Why should one have BiG? To acquire Bn.
I cannot maintain BiG when I know my motivation for doing so is the acquisition of Bn, and I am suspicious of anyone who can do that. Truth falls out, and it's merely believing for the treats those beliefs bestow.
Quid////// If there are no benefits, why even bother with the belief at all? I can believe in a Creator just because of complexity and the mystery of life. I get satisfaction from that reasoning.
kosmon......your benefit from belief in a creator is your feeling of satisfaction . If you did not experience any benefit of any kind would you still believe in a creator ?
59//// Yes I would. The complexity of existence and the mystery of life convinces me.
@@RobespierreThePoof //// Your analogy does not hold true. There are both religious and secular reasons that one could have for believing in a Creator. Does your 'reasoning' include the spirit realm of being? It is incomplete otherwise.
They are both talking about belief like if it was a button that you can click on which seems irrelevant to me .
you can't force your brain to see something as true , it's either you are convinced that there is evidence of the existence of god or not, you can't say : well, I will start believing in god right now, it doesn't work this way
Yeah, I think James and Pascal imagine a situation where you really are 50/50 without any evidence either way. These situations are pretty rare, and most people don't feel that way about religion, there will be something that swings them one way or the other.
Thanks! We are glad that you like our channel. We welcome you to check back on our UA-cam channel or website regularly, as we often upload new videos.
Meanwhile, be sure to subscribe to our UA-cam channel and "like" our Facebook page (which is on our channel)!
{ أَمۡ خُلِقُواْ مِنۡ غَيۡرِ شَيۡءٍ أَمۡ هُمُ ٱلۡخَٰلِقُونَ }
[Surah Aṭ-Ṭūr: 35]
Sabeq Company:
Atau apakah mereka tercipta tanpa asal-usul ataukah mereka yang menciptakan (diri mereka sendiri)?
Sahih International:
Or were they created by nothing, or were they the creators [of themselves]?
So it's all down to Pascal's wager, which is frankly bullshit.
+LoadedTunafish William James talks about how Pascal's wager is flawed in WIll to Believe.
Please support your conclusion.
Pascal's wager is based on the idea that a lifetime of religious practice pays off in the afterlife.
James is saying belief has existential benefits, that you have a payoff in your daily life from the belief. There's no wager it's an objective benefit. It's a far stronger argument.
It's Pascal's wager with a simple plus.
Basically, James is saying that if you belive it you can hold a psycological benefit that could make you live better.
But this is the same function of Pascal wager. What makes sense about Pascal propose is that if he holds that belive so when he is alive he can be conforted by that feeling.
It's the exactly same psycological benefits. The only difference is the implicity threat in the Pascal wager.
So you basically didn't actually understand the argument.
Where there is physical evidence, why would one need belief?
Thanks, knowledgeisfree! (We agree with the sentiment, incidentally).
There should be more posted fairly regularly; we'd sure appreciate your subscription if you're interested.
Hello I'm Jouke Elsinga allumnus of the University of Twente and I'd like to talk about a simple argument for the conclusion that it's wrong to believe the argument presented against God's existence. It goes like this:
P1) There is no evidence presented in the video in favor of one of the two fundamental premises of the argument. (Lets assume that this is true)
P2) If there is no evidence presented in favor of one of the two fundamental premises of the argument, than it is wrong to believe the argument.
C) It is wrong to believe the argument.
I would argue that those potential gains from the will to believe are selfish in nature. In a way it’s a form of strategic lying for personal benefit. Which could be considered at the least morally ambiguous.
10$ says Rupert was a fellow junior at Harvard.
I understand the historical importance of this but I struggle to find the relevance of the authors. In both science (my field being microbiology) and philosophy (my hobby being philosophy of religion) I am seeing a rising trend in what borders on a celebrity culture, where the author is as important as their quote. I fail to see how in such learned fields the authors have any relevance at all when we should all only being judging the relevance of a given theory or philosophy by its own presented merits lest we enter into what has been entertainingly named a 'circle jerk'.
To whit my issue with these philosophies. Stripped of any presumption of philosophical substance granted by the authors, both the arguments and philosophies presented seem incredibly weak. To substantiate morality based on belief without evidence is entirely different to belief in the face of opposing evidence as is the contradiction of the first argument and analogy. The second simply misses the point entirely. To act as though you believe something is not the same as to actually believe. If it were so, therapists would be out of a job pretty sharpish. Second, as the argument centres around morality, the latter argument does little to address the issue of acting without evidence and the wide repercussions outside of a sterile scenario. When debating the this and morality of faith, to attribute it to a world in which the complications of chaos theory are absent makes a mockery of any possible real world application of said philosophy. Although the concept of a slippery slope is an oft over exaggerated ad absurdum style tactic, it is not so ridiculous to imply when discussing such absurd levels of belief as required to be of faith. This is not to ridicule faith, but merely to highlight that compared to the innocuous dating scenario, the amount of belief in the absence of evidence to be of faith is of an exponential increase of absurdly high levels. Therefore, the morality, or lack thereof, of such a belief should be relatively adjusted to absurdly high morality or immorality. That is, to say, if approaching the argument from the original position.
However it is an important point to make, that unlike both examples were evidence was presented but simply ignored, from a purely spiritualistic and not defined religious point of view, there is no evidence against and therefore only the 'evidence' for faith, that evidence being the personal experiences of believers such as define communication and miracles.
However, to stray from the video somewhat, to use my favourite criteria, the falsification principle, I would consider it more prudent to say that to have faith without first considering what would be required to loss that belief is what should truly be immoral, as can be applied to science or faith. For if you cannot think of how your belief can be dispelled, is to accept you think your faith and by extension you yourself are infallible. Now, this thinking can easily be defined as irrational, narcissistic, intellectually harmful and therefore immoral.
Apologies for the numerous typos. Late and on a tablet. Poor excuses I know. Aside from that I would love to hear other's opinions on the subject and criticism of my interpretation. (As I said, this is a hobby to me and thus I am quite junior in my appreciation of the finer points of philosophy).
The question "is belief in an unfounded premise justifiable?" seems very
relevant to a lot of contemporary debate, especially in the field of
philosophy of religion. James' argument is a good one.
From what you have written I would think that James' book "the varieties of religious experience" might be a good read for you. It's free from Project Gutenburg!
But isn't the substance weighing down James' scale itself evidence? Sure this still counters an absolute moral judgement of belief without evidence, but is that belief even a *real* belief at the point where the choice to do so isn't based on its presumed truth? It seems that "belief" needs to be broken down into different categories based on its specified merit in order to resolve both sides of this dispute.
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Besides the beleif that she's not going to like him is unfounded anyway. Maybe the problem is his unfounded beleif that people are not going to like him that make him less succesfull in the first place.
yeah, it's more healthy to go in thinking "this person liked the idea of me enough to go on this date" and to then behave according to that... since that's the truth. He could also say "she didn't propose marriage to me BEFORE the date, so she obviously doesn't like me enough yet to do that". And it would also be moral to behave according to that.
There are lots of false beliefs that could result in a personal gain. I could believe that all the food in the refrigerator at work was put there by others, with the intent that I would eat all of it. And this can work out very well for me. But it is immoral because I'm harming my coworkers by stealing their lunches.
So I would put it this way: whenever there is a falsehood that could be beneficial to believe without evidence, there's a corresponding true belief that would be EVEN BETTER to discover and then believe.
Is it immoral to insist on a belief in the face of contrary evidence?
The process of constructing a belief in the conscious mind will not be forgotten by the constructor, therefore in the case of the nervous person on a date telling himself his date actually likes him knows, in the back of his mind, that not only has he simply constructed a belief that may not align with reality, but that he has given his date a good reason NOT to like him - he is willing to falsify reality and therefore cannot be trusted.
Hmm, but isn't it a bit like acting? You act as if your date already likes you and you try to lose yourself in that character, even though you that It's just a character. Why would acting to be confident and likable until they don't have to anymore make someone untrustworthy? Or is trying to lose yourself in an act something very distinct from making yourself believe something? Or are both bad or something?
@@romanski5811 If I were on a date with someone who "acted" as if I already liked them, they wouldn't be responding spontaneously to my moment-to-moment indications of desire or the lack thereof toward them, but to a fabricated simulacrum of reality in which I am essentially a non player character. I would find this disconnect very unattractive, and therefore this approach isn't producing the result they'd want. Much more attractive to me and I assume most, would be for them to say " I'm really a bit nervous about this date". This small offering of vulnerability is honest, sweet, and impossible really to find unattractive.
@@DanielClementYoga I don't agree at all.
He's not falsifying reality, but coping with his emotional experience.
The girl is probably not interested, while it's very possible for them to have an enjoyable evening.
Aristotle would say that his emotional experience is not tending towards its end, that is, helping Rupert to act better in his environment, therefore it's bad. The belief that she likes him, while very unlikely (according to his reasoning), is way more good (close to his end) than his emotions.
On the second comment: humans are inevitably emphatic, Rupert would not be so unresponsive, and also they don't remain fixated on a single belief forever, but re-evaluate repetedly during the course of a meeting/date.
The Vikings approve of William James' point, what could make them more successful in battle than the belief in Valhalla?
The way I look against the will to believe is that it is wrong to believe a claim iff their is insufficient supporting evidence and evidence that you may be wrong. using religion as an example: for the majority of human it was acceptable/correct for humans to believe; however, in recent years it has become questionable, but not incorrect, to believe due to the ability to describe phenomenon's with out the need for divine intervention.
How could 2 great philosophers not notice the falacy of the arguement i.e arguing from ignorance.
it has been my experience that this is the case for all but the the modern philosophers, hence my disdain for the pedestal their philosophies are thrust upon purely because of their historical significance. I should be able to accept the importance of Plato and Socrates without arbitrarily treating their ideas as somehow equally or more relevant simply because it was their idea.
I don’t think Clifford is making the argument from ignorance. He’s not saying.. ‘there’s not evidence, therefore it’s false...
But... There is no evidence, so it’s immoral to believe it.
My favorite video of the series. Intriguing!
The video stuck a chord with me... Thanks :)
I guess I will start here
I think it is okay for rupert to believe that his date likes him because he is so cute! There is a 100% chance that she does.
6:32 - Isn't that just being delusional to fight off delusions. Like I would rather believe a dragon is protecting me when I cross the dangerous road, then work out a method that has a better chance of working. So if I have a date and I want to ensure they like me I try to work out what makes them happy and do this. Surely this is a better plan, or I say well I don't need them to like, me it's better to find someone that actually does like me for me, and I like them for them, then to play a sort of delusion game.
It's "immoral" to BELIEVE Without "evidence". This ASSUMES there is EVIDENCE for the existence of the sets of the " immoral" and the "wrong". There MAY be No empirical (physical) evidence for the existence of "immoral" and "wrong", only in the imagination of human minds.
Excellent video. As someone who has dealt with anxiety issues I have to side with James on this one. People like Clifford seem to be dismissing many areas of life where convincing ourselves of something we don't (currently) believe is important. When you're depressed or highly anxious you're standards of truth/falsehood are so distorted that it's impossible to satisfy your appetite for sufficient evidence. It's not to say that every area of life works this way, but I think James was right to point out some of the areas that do.
something doesn't have to be moral to be pragmatic. Conversely just because something is moral, doesn't make it the most effective strategy. To confuse the subject of morality, an ethical judgement of right and wrong, with an emotional view of right and wrong such as in many of these arguments, is a misunderstanding of the concepts. It is also selfish to assume that what is best for an individual to progress, be it in a relationship or at work, is necessarily moral.
+Christopher Miller I'll admit I don't know enough about the study of ethics to defend James. But I have tried to read the Will to Believe since I posted my last comment. I think James thought rationality and reason had a limited sphere of influence, and that some questions (moral and religious) have to be decisively acted upon in the absence of evidence. I don't think he argued that *all* matters of religion and ethics should be decided through the will to believe; James accepted Darwin's theory of evolution, for example. So, yeah, I don't know exactly where James draws the line on the "will to believe," but I don't think he was okay with people being completely whimsical about their ethical beliefs.
I wonder how Clifford would say we ought to act in cases where there is no evidence present. In his story, the shipowner does not start in a neutral position in regards to information about the health of his ship. For instance, if I walk into a room and in that room there is a cup. I have no evidence whether that cup is full or empty. What then?
As for James, is the hedonistic argument of risk management (his rephrasing of Pascal's wager) really all that matters when it comes to faith? If we go back to the cup example, am I to act as if the cup was full so that I make sure it does not tip over?
And, I guess lastly, do we have to attribute moral value to believing without evidence? Again, back to the cup, why does me assuming the cup is full/empty have anything to do with morality. I could be wrong in the intellectual sense, but how does that translate to moral value?
"If I walk into a room and in that room there is a cup. I have no evidence whether that cup is full or empty. What then?"
Then Clifford would tell us to believe neither that the cup is full, nor that it is empty, since either belief would have no justification. Until we have fairly investigated the issue, we should not form a belief.
"Why does me assuming the cup is full/empty have anything to do with morality?"
Clifford goes into detail about this in "The Ethics of Belief". It's easily available on the web, it's not long, and it's a fun read, so it is highly recommended.
Clifford has this to say: "Belief, that sacred faculty which prompts the decisions of our will, and knits into harmonious working all the compacted energies of our being, is ours not for ourselves but for humanity. It is rightly used on truths which have been established by long experience and waiting toil, and which have stood in the fierce light of free and fearless questioning. ... It is desecrated when given to unproved and unquestioned statements."
In other words, when we believe things without giving them a fair investigation, we make ourselves untrustworthy and prove that our judgements should be disregarded by others. Our judgements could have served great good, but instead we wasted all that potential by believing that a cup was full or empty.
BUT IS IT TRUE?
Define "true" xD
so i think the next question to ask is, are religious people truly happy?
1. If a belief without evidence is useful to help a group of people to survive, the belief can be moral/ethical .
2. In the case of a ship at sea stuck in a storm, hope and belief of possibly escaping, despite what evidence of the storm implies, helps the group to maximize their survival strategy and attempt to survive (morale, hope, etc).
3. Therefore, belief without evidence in this case is ethical/moral and even vital.
Learned helplessness is an example of what happens when evidence of likely outcomes destroys the potential to escape or survive a terrible situation.
What justifies anti-prudential belief is not reason, but privilege, luxury, and ease of access to immediate escape or shelter from harm.
You forgot one factor. Hope. Human love hope even it's not logic
wheres the rest
Great video, i’ve been thinking a similar question myself
Belief in moral operates basically in the same field than belief in god. I find i very amusing whenever an a supporter of scientism tells that something is moral or immoral, since the whole idea of morality cannot be broken down in numbers.
Now i’m not saying that god exists but we should admit that ultimately moral is a belief system and cannot be measured or examined in matemathical means
No, the premises of morality cannot be measured mathematically, however, depending on the moral theory, its axioms most certainly are measured mathematically, ie., utilitarianism for example.
Doopliss it still doesn’t make it any more ”real”
Wm James was an early proponent of Orwellian doublethink. Tell your emotions that 2 and 2 are 5, because the Party said so, but when you are applying math to real life (cutting wood or tallying chocolate rations) calculate that 2 and 2 are 4. Sorry, it just doesn’t fly. Arguing for religion is always so complex, the old “if you can’t blind with brilliance then baffle with b.s.” strategy.
However, I side with Clifford's moral philosophy, in the long run. We would need to decide which religion (or deistic world view) is in question, prior to concluding believe in a God has more positive outcomes, rather than negative. Moreover, we would need to asses what possible influences such a deity (if fictional) has over us that may be incorrect or fallacious thus.
Notions of Pascal's Wager have been refuted, and I may do so as well if anyone is a proponent and is curious.
I can comprehend the probabilistic correlation between believing in God and not believing in God. However, the allocation of values to these probabilities poses a problem. It's well-established that belief in God carries a substantial cost, particularly for society. Therefore, is it truly worthwhile to entertain the possibility of an (unjustified) enormous gain, when the real cost is so exorbitant?
It’s so crazy that most philosopher uses a story to explain there Theory of whatever there trying to convince. But someone many criticizes Jesus according to the Bible where CHRSIT himself told his evidence of God being real by parables to people so that may understand it. My point is that I agree that a man that haves no evidence of what he believes in is wrong, but the question is what is consider sufficient evidence? And According to James if God is not real, there is not enough sufficient evidence to prove otherwise. What do you guys think?
So he uses Pascale's wager?
The immediate rebuttal for believers, why believe that one god over the thousand of others? Wouldn't the lowest risk be to believe all of them just a little bit? Or none at all
In this case I don't think they were using Pascal's Wager. It wasn't "I should believe in God because if I don't I'm more likely to go to an eternal hell if I don't", it was " believe in God because it helps me cope with my severe depression". At least that is how I interpreted it.
yes, it is. it makes you reject rationality and your own deductive powers.
Awesome videos! Thanks!
Hi Jonathon,
I think the video refers to the gods of the Western monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam).
In both Clifford's and James' views, assessing the value of the possible impact for holding the belief that God exists is important. If you are advocating for Clifford, then are you saying we should never take the risk of holding a belief to prevent those possible negative impacts?
Pascal's Wager is actually different from James' Will to Believe.
this guys voice is familiar. It sounds like the guy who makes those Numberphile videos!
4 terms anybody?
Existence of a creator i.e. God is a scientifically proven reality. we can understand the presence of God though different physical phenomenas occuring in the universe. it is not necessary that it is covered by our five senses. Deductive logice is also scienrific.
How could anyone opt to believe because they think it benefits them? So self deceptive.
Who knew James was such a hopeless romantic 😂
I wonder what sufficient evidence Clifford had for believing that all beliefs that are held without sufficient evidence are immoral?
Good job
No... This does not even come close to exploring the ideas outlined in the title
but there is absolutelly no evidence ... that is no controversy there... everyone says that you must believe based on faith.
Juan//// Depends upon what you consider evidence. I find evidence for God's existence, so there must be some.
Well said
Will do.
They both talk as if belief comes from an act of will. Where did that come from? I don't believe 2+2=4 because I choose to; I believe it because I cannot choose otherwise. Similarly with beliefs of which I think I may be wrong; lacking sufficient evidence about A, I incline naturally - not as an act of will - to provisionally believe either A or -A. Moreover, we have many beliefs which do not depend on what would be considered sufficient evidence from the point of view of a strict, rigorous epistemological standpoint. I believe many things about history, but I have no good evidence - I rely on what I am told by people who relied on what they were told by people who relied on what they were told by.....etc. Also, there is a huge language problem here. Who can give a good naming and reference hypothesis for the term "God" such that everyone - or even many people - will have their minds informed by the same concept when that term is uttered? Last, self-deception would seem to be a bad thing insofar as it is merely bad faith. But it appears more foolish than evil, until you use it to goad yourself into risking the well-being of others. Then it is wrong to put others at risk, but the attempt at self-deception is still merely foolish, especially since real self-deception - as opposed to bad faith - would seem to be impossible anyway.
You do yourself well, in that your presentation is free from enough prejudice to prevent any sort of fallacious conclusion.
Nice video, and I appreciate your contribution to the philosophical community. Very...articulate.
First this all goes on a flawed idea.
There isn't evidence of how everything can exist.
Second we don't have evidence to explain the unknown.
Therefore we don't know if a God exists or not.
This means you have beliefs on how everything exists and you believe it had nothing to do with a God, but you don't actually know for sure. Others believe it is a God. You can't claim they are wrong, but they can't claim you're wrong either. The only logical position is to be agnostic till more evidence is found, that is if you don't want to act on belief.
See to you there is no evidence to everyone else there is evidence of everything, and without a rational reason to explain how everything exists, then it is plausible that a God could have made everything. Just because you see no evidence of a God, and since there is also no evidence to show how everything exists, it's not possible to rule out a God. So at this point you have to show how everything exists without a God to even begin to rule out a God, if you can't do this, then you can't say it's wrong to believe in a God, because effectively you believe everything existed simply because it does with no explanation. So if someone then decides that a God is the best explanation for them, you can't say they're wrong, because you can't show how everything exists, or even if there is alternate dimensions or places beyond our comprehension that exist in which some kind of God exists. You can't also rule out that the universe started off as an object and then became self aware, shaping existence. You can't also rule out a God always existed and was self aware and created a multiverse, or we could also say the universe always existed without the need of a God, but if we can't prove this then we can't argue it's wrong for someone to believe something is different to what you believe that the universe exists without a God. As in no evidence isn't proof that God doesn't exist, it's simply a belief. You have to prove they don't exist. When I look in my room I see no evidence so it doesn't exist here. You have to prove that their isn't other places or dimensions or show that other dimensions don't have a God in them, or the universe isn't self aware, basically you have to be able to explain the unknowns, before you can claim with certainty there is no God.
@@RobespierreThePoof You're critiquing needs more work, keep at it.
@@RobespierreThePoof Lets say you have 2 positions, none have any real supporting evidence. First Position: So the universe just exists for no known reason, as in the singularity point came out of no where. Second position: the God that could possibly have created the universe came out of no were. In both positions we have something that came out of no where with no real explanation.
The only conclusion is we need far more evidence to say how everything exists. Since the possibility of a God is possible, in that we understand quantum entanglement this means from billions of miles away someone could then get information instantly about something billions of miles away. There is so many things we don't fully understand about the universe that we can't rule out a God existing, there was also many things we didn't understand till science advanced like radiation. So if we can't work out how everything exists, we can't then say it's wrong to believe that everything exists out of luck, or that everything exists because a God, because neither position has strong evidence to reject either position.
So with out evidence to prove that something isn't possible, then we can't say it isn't possible, even if it seems highly unlikely, all we can say is we see no evidence, everything after this point that is based on the unknown, or that which isn't disproved is belief. The correct position is to remain agnostic till we know more. However if you want to believe there is no possibility of a God, or belief there is a God, it's all belief, because it hasn't been disproven, even if it seems unlikely. Then you can't judge someone for having different beliefs from yourself, as you have no evidence to back claims, or disprove claims. IE: if someone says there is a draft in the room, and says it must be the wind, and then someone says no you're wrong, look the fan is on. They then know it was the fan, unless they turn it off and it's still windy/drafty, then it was both. Point is you found something to disprove the claim.
Does Clifford believe that evidence for belief in a moral law is required or does he just assume a moral law when he says it's a sin against others to believe without evidence? If he assumes a moral law then he defeats his own position. If Christians had taken William James' position, that belief without evidence is permissible if it helps you, in the first three centuries then Christianity would have disappeared in no time at all. Who benefitted from being a Christian at that time? Both positions seem problematic.
Clifford claims that all beliefs need evidence, but he doesn't have a single shred of evidence to support his claims. The only "evidence" he has is in his thought experiment, which actually contradicts his claims lol (and anecdotal isn't even that effective). To have such a black and white view of the world shows that Clifford is extremely stubborn and naive. Pretty much every scientific fact/theory starts out from assumptions without evidence; by Clifford's logic, they should be dismissed for originating without evidence then. Also, powerful entities like governments and companies can easily suppress subcultures, extremist ideologies, and other minority beliefs from spreading and influencing the mainstream (at least before the internet existed).
So, Clifford echoed Hume; and James echoed Pascal.
구글에 철학강의를 찾다가 우연히 페이스북에 있는 홍보 글을 보고 들어왔는데, 재밌고 간단하게 이해할수 있어서 너무 좋네요 !
If someone were to say that theres no evidence that God exists, one of my replies back to them would be that theres no evidence that God doesn't exist.
This is such a bad argument that it’s embarrassing to watch.
very clear and interesting !
I think that everyone has a right to believing in God, religion, the supernatural, etc. I think it is merely opinion and perspective of what to believe. You can believe in something, or you can choose not to. Or, you can acknowledge the belief and be inbetween.
this is where 'knoledge', wisdom, science, intelLigence... this is where is confirms freedom of religion n individuals make out the world to b ..'wrong'? ... Its wrong to decide someone elses wrong or right... It is wrong wronging thinking so... or saying so. .. Authoritary intelLect not get much respect from me
Quite nicely framed and clear. I googled "will to believe" because I am writing a political article about why it is good to believe Donald Trump. Your lovely video gave me some valuable insight. Thanks!
.
Rupert doesn't seem to understand that his experience with women is always descriptive, never prescriptive. therefore, more than based on experience, his choices are based on lack of information, which is exactly the point Clifford was trying to make.
This, boys and girls, is what happens when a substandard mind tries to match its wits against the big boys. . .
If your are right in your theory you have nothing to lose......................That God doesn't exist. If you are wrong you have an eternity to lose.
Read the Will To Believe. William James argues that this is utterly unconvincing to those whom religion is already a dead option.
Thank you for the input, I am new to this. Is the "thanks" for anything have to do with "Free Will" I might not be expressing myself correct. In regards for being thankful.
+John Waters As the greatest unanswerable question, religion is the perfect breeding ground for philosophy. You can't have many great philosophical debates about provable theories until someone proves or disproves it. Therefore, as if by survival of the most unanswerable, the only subjects left open for philosophical debate are often intrinsically linked to belief.
Christopher Miller It certainly was, but now it's not so much. Also, not all such beliefs have such obvious religious connotation and there is a difference between teaching philosophy and teaching sophistry to give an aura of rationality to beliefs which lack logic. Wireless Philosophy teaches the latter.
Yeah but in the words of Homer Simpson "what if we're going to the wrong church and just making god angrier and angrier".
The fact that there are infinitely many options as to what gods may or may not exist the probability of you worshipping the correct grouping is 0. This also means that there are infinitely many possibilities as to what some afterlife may be. The question is not 2 dimensional like pascal wanted to pretend it was. Rather there are infinite gods and groupings of gods with infinite possible rewards and punishments that would have to be considered before ever even attempting to pick one or several to worship. And remember your chances of getting it right are zero.
"He could do 1 arm pull-ups"?!!!
Sounds like good evidence to me!
.......it's called humor for you squares
Another philosophical debate! Is it humor if it isn't funny?
@@marinaderose9403 Yes! Because it will be funny to someone!
Thee is no such thing as morality.
Clifford died at 33 = Illuminati lol!
Why do I remain worried that an Islamist terrorist could all too easily help himself to James' "Will To Believe".
When there's no god, there's no universal standard of morality, therefore there's nothing wrong or right about a belief in anything.
I would argue the opposite. It is only without the existential fear of an eternity of suffering or lust for an eternity of bliss, that an objective morality can exist. Where man no longer requires a spiritual boogie man to scare him into behaving. True morality must come from the primary motive of caring for others and behaving in such a way. Behaving in a given way because someone told you so is not moral.
The creator is there, the evidence is that which gives life to your body, it is the same evidence that leaves your body when you die, it is the energy (spirit) that when leaving your body, becomes part of all that energy that exists in the universe, that energy that science calls information, you want evidence, you have it in front of your nose, but you don't understand it. In this life and the next stay in The Light. Ramon Sandoval.
El creador esta ahi, la evidencia es eso que le da vida a tu cuerpo, es la misma evidencia que abandona tu cuerpo cuando falleces, es la energía (espíritu) que al abandonar tu cuerpo, pasa a ser parte de toda esa energía que existe en el universo, esa energía que la ciencia llama información, quieres evidencia, la tienes frente de tu nariz, pero no la entiendes. En esta vida y la siguiente quédate en La Luz. Ramon Sandoval.
Clifford is the best guy
Provie there is no god
Interesting stories. But evidence-based inquiry is science, not religion. Belief is, by definition, seeking "truth" without sufficient evidence.
Williamkington believed it a sin to believe in God with no evidence, how the hell can there be sin if there is no God?!?! that's pretty shitty philosophy. no God = No sin Достоевский
No one said there is no God. Whether we believe in God or not is an entirely separate issue from whether God exists or not. God might well exist without evidence, but if so then we should not believe since no belief should ever be held without evidence.
There's tons of evidence that Jesus existed.