skip to main |
skip to sidebar
If we adopt a skeptical approach, we are less likely to believe things that are false, but will also probably not believe many things that are true but for which evidence is lacking. If we take a credulous approach, by believing everything we may be certain that we have believed everything that is true, but we will inevitably believe many things that are false as well.
Which approach do you consider preferable? Is there any real way to find a middle ground between them? And for those whose religious standpoint leads them to believe that God prefers one or the other of these approaches (or looks favorably on humans who adopt one or the other), why do you think that might be the case?
Link
12 comments:
I think there is a middle ground. We just need to soften the word 'believe'.
It would take a lot of evidence to convince me, "you're right, carrots are a cure for poor vision."
It would take much much less to convince me, "you're right, the connection between carrots and vision is worth investigating and looks promising."
I don't really lose much by taking the second stance, even if it turns out that carrots are particularly helpful.
Also, I'm not sure that the credulous approach leads to that many more correct beliefs.
The number of wrong ways to do something seems to massively outweigh the number of right ways.
Sounds like Pascal's Wager lite to me.
Truth, absent of evidence, is little different from that which is false. Much like god, without any evidence to support his existence, he is little different from one that does not exist, for we have no way to perceive him.
But at the same time, all we understand are our perceptions of things, which if you've realized how malleable those perceptions are should give you pause.
Some people jump immediately to Christian faith from that realization, which is a non-sequitur, and while I happen to believe that everything has a natural and explainable cause, I think we ought to keep our minds open about 'spiritual' matters.
That being said, I tend to block out much Christian stuff these days, simply because it is too soon after my decon. Some things still scare me, and that fear makes it hard for me to function. So there are situations I think where ignoring all 'supernatural' explanations is just fine.
(btw, it's Stamati here)
The skeptical approach outlined here is a valid way to live your life.
The credulous approach outlined here is a straw man by my estimation. I don't think there's anyone on the planet who believes everything. For example, I doubt that there's anyone alive today who believes that the Norse god Thor causes thunder AND believes that thunder is caused when angels decide to bowl a few frames AND believes that thunderstorms are created through natural, understandable meteorological phenomena. No one is actually so credulous as to believe everything.
So I'm not sure what the question is supposed to be asking. Of course the first approach is preferred to the second because the first approach is one where an individual can live and act in the world and the second is one that only someone with some severe mental issues could actually follow.
Don't know why this is an "important" epistemological question, the choice is clear. Even the most deluded are skeptics, just not to their own belief system.
"....but will also probably not believe many things that are true but for which evidence is lacking."
Ok, where to start. First, something can't be true if there is no evidence for it. The very definition of true, "consistent with fact or reality; not false or erroneous", demands some evidence to declare a thing to be true. Otherwise it's erroneous or false until EVIDENCE proves it exists.
Let's plug god into this argument--a being that there is no evidence to prove its existence: Everyone should believe that god exists in the absence of evidence in case it is true. Whoa! Isn't this the very definition of what it means to have faith--to believe something to be true in the absence of evidence? This isn't, in my opinion, an important Epistemological Question, it's the same old reasoning Christians have been using for eons to get people to believe in their unprovable claims.
But after giving it much thought. I am probably missing out on a lot psychological exercising and mental gymnastics by not believing in a god. So by his suggestion I now believe that leprechauns, fairies, big foot, ghosts, aliens, hobbits, gremlins, warlocks, Mother Goose, Zeus, Hercules (oh please let him be real!), demons, witches, vampires (only the True Blood ones) all are real. I am hoping these new beliefs bring me a spiritual joy and a new found hope in my life beyond my wildest dreams because I certainly don't want to miss out on the incredible experience of having faith! What a high! Praise man's imagination, Amen.
I think this is a great question.
After half a century of living and exploring spirituality and religions in depth, I now find it absurd and harmful to "believe" in things that are either subjective and invisible, or based only in the subjective and invisible experience of people in the past.
So that would include the Bible, Koran, Torah, Kabbala, Upanishads and Bhagavad Gita. Although, having studied both the Bible and the Gita, I'd say the latter has more "useful" advice for living, but that's just my opinion.
If I want to "think" I've had an experience of Jesus, then it behooves me to keep it to myself. Surely if Jesus talked to me, he can talk directly to whomever without me putting my 2 cents in.
Religion is a shuck, a realm for conmen and conwomen, and anyone who is more interested in the future kingdom than in the kingdom spread out before us RIGHT NOW is eating air.
"If we take a credulous approach, by believing everything we may be certain that we have believed everything that is true, but we will inevitably believe many things that are false as well."
Just imagine the utter chaos! that would soon develope in the world,if we tended to err on taking sides of the credulous approach with everything.
Even the faithful have adopted and demand a skeptical approach, with most everything else! except for their chosen faith.If they actually dared to be a little bit honest about it.
We know to do this because of safety,its actually being inteligent.And better for survival specially in an imperfect world where human people are known they will even tell porkies and have you believing all sorts of rubbish if they can do!.Its a natural way we evolved is being heathliy sceptical,and for very good reason too!like a need of carrying on living!.
So ...What kind of omnipotent gods? would ever make themselves so scarce,in a world (they created) where our lives and safety and very survival ACTUALLY revolved so much around the need for us to take a (skeptical approach!).
Would then punish us for being unfaithful, by being sceptical?.
Yet is still somehow to be seen by faithful as loving?.
Pfffftttt !! ..Yeah and the cow jumps over the moon too right
At best these gods are crazy childish madmen .Pure pranksters!
I suggest its very much more likely! that something somehow makes a supernatural type thinking human mind wander greatly and simply run away COMPLETELY! somewhere in infinite imagination la la land! with its thoughts
And thats dangerous! ..Which is exactly! what it often has been too hasnt it.
I think that it depends upon which beliefs we are talking about.
The biggest the consequences, the more skeptical we should be, because getting it wrong would be all the more devastating. However, the more benign the consequences, the more credulity would be acceptable to me.
In general, I tend more towards scepticism, because it has the higher likelihood of having true beliefs, because it actually looks at the quality of the evidence in support of some beliefs.
To James Mcgrath, my thoughts are exactly.
In the set of all possible explanations the truth is a vanishingly small subset. If there's one thing that thousands of years of history has shown us is that when our beliefs aren't evaluated sceptically we invariably find falsehoods rather than the truth. While it is technically correct that we may withhold belief in something true, this represents an insignificant minority of cases and it will protect us against the vastly more common and damaging cases where we place inordinate belief in falsehoods.
Post a Comment