If you do have a car that can teleport you from place to place, then maybe that is a miracle, and I'm not going to sit here and say, if you've seen it happen, that it's not, but it only effects me to the extent that I can be a part of the miracle.

Isn't calling it "a long shot" just another way of saying that it is probably false? In other words, you think the story is more likely false than true, and so you don't believe it.

Well said. As as good skeptic I feel that it's only right to be skeptical about my skepticism.

I just mean that my having not seen it happen doesn't mean that it didn't happen.

Therefore, having not seen it myself, I would not say you are lying but would probably reply something like , "Great, but it doesn't mean anything to me."

maybe so, but it really doesn't matter what I think happened....what matters is what actually happened.

My grandpa, when it happened, and to this day, didn't/doesn't believe Neil Armstrong and crew landed on the moon.

As a good skeptic, I'm skeptical that it is right to be skeptical about my skepticism :shifty:



But these claims don't exist in a vaccuum. If you said to me "The moose beat the Foxes in a game of squareball, 22-1" I would have no idea what you were talking about, and have no particular reason to think you were lying. I might very well say "my having not seen it happen doesn't mean that it didn't happen". If you tell me that the Rams beat the Colts 22-1, then I have a frame of reference, and I am quite right to assume you are lying.

But the issue is not what is believed or not. The issue is what is believed or not given the evidence. People are gullible, and most are inclined to believe anything that fits into their preconceptions of how the world is. (Or does not fit into their preconceptions of how the world is). Thus, ignorance breeds ignorance. The crucial thing to remember is, as David Hume wrote, "The wise man proportions his belief to the evidence".

maybe so, but it really doesn't matter what I think happened....what matters is what actually happened.

And, as in other such cases, it is not the risk only which has to be considered; for a bad action is always bad at the time when it is done, no matter what happens afterwards. Every time we let ourselves believe for unworthy reasons, we weaken our powers of self-control, of doubting, of judicially and fairly weighing evidence. We all suffer severely enough from the maintenance and support of false beliefs and the fatally wrong actions which they lead to, and the evil born when one such belief is entertained is great and wide. But a greater and wider evil arises when the credulous character is maintained and supported, when a habit of believing for unworthy reasons is fostered and made permanent. If I steal money from any person, there may be no harm done by the mere transfer of possession; he may not feel the loss, or it may prevent him from using the money badly. But I cannot help doing this great wrong towards Man, that I make myself dishonest. What hurts society is not that it should lose its property, but that it should become a den of thieves; for then it must cease to be society. This is why we ought not to do evil that good may come; for at any rate this great evil has come, that we have done evil and are made wicked thereby. In like manner, if I let myself believe anything on insufficient evidence, there may be no great harm done by the mere belief; it may be true after all, or I may never have occasion to exhibit it in outward acts. But I cannot help doing this great wrong towards Man, that I make myself credulous. The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things, though that is great enough; but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them; for then it must sink back into savagery.

The harm which is done by credulity in a man is not confined to the fostering of a credulous character in others, and consequent support of false beliefs. Habitual want of care about what I believe leads to habitual want of care in others about the truth of what is told to me. Men speak the truth to one another when each reveres the truth in his own mind and in the other's mind; but how shall my friend revere the truth in my mind when I myself am careless about it, when I believe things because I want to believe them, and because they are comforting and pleasant? Will he not learn to cry, "Peace," to me, when there is no peace? By such a course I shall surround myself with a thick atmosphere of falsehood and fraud, and in that I must live. It may matter little to me, in my cloud-castle of sweet illusions and darling lies; but it matters much to Man that I have made my neighbours ready to deceive. The credulous man is father to the liar and the cheat; he lives in the bosom of this his family, and it is no marvel if he should become even as they are. So closely are our duties knit together, that whoso shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

My grandpa, when it happened, and to this day, didn't/doesn't believe Neil Armstrong and crew landed on the moon.

But his belief about it doesn't change that fact that it either did or did not actually happen.

Similarly. You may truly have some miraculous thing at your house. Whether I believe it or not and whether I see it or not, doesn't change the facts of whether it was or is(did) actually there(happened).

And to discredit you solely based on what I witness would not be fair. This is why I think it is better to simply maintain that it may in fact be real and significant for you, it remains trivial to me since I was not able to see it or make it happen.

And no one man's belief is in any case a private matter which concerns himself alone. Our lives are guided by that general conception of the course of things which has been created by society for social purposes. Our words, our phrases, our forms and processes and modes of thought, are common property, fashioned and perfected from age to age; an heirloom which every succeeding generation inherits as a precious deposit and a sacred trust to be handed on to the next one, not unchanged but enlarged and purified, with some clear marks of its proper handiwork. Into this, for good or ill, is woven every belief of every man who has speech of his fellows. An awful privilege, and an awful responsibility, that we should help to create the world in which posterity will live.

In the two supposed cases which have been considered, it has been judged wrong to believe on insufficient evidence, or to nourish belief by suppressing doubts and avoiding investigation. The reason of this judgment is not far to seek: it is that in both these cases the belief held by one man was of great importance to other men. But forasmuch as no belief held by one man, however seemingly trivial the belief, and however obscure the believer, is ever actually insignificant or without its effect on the fate of mankind, we have no choice but to extend our judgment to all cases of belief whatever. 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. Then it helps to bind men together, and to strengthen and direct their common action. It is desecrated when given to unproved and unquestioned statements, for the solace and private pleasure of the believer; to add a tinsel splendour to the plain straight road of our life and display a bright mirage beyond it; or even to drown the common sorrows of our kind by a self-deception which allows them not only to cast down, but also to degrade us. Whoso would deserve well of his fellows in this matter will guard the purity of his belief with a very fanaticism of jealous care, lest at any time it should rest on an unworthy object, and catch a stain which can never be wiped away.

It is not only the leader of men, statesmen, philosopher, or poet, that owes this bounden duty to mankind. Every rustic who delivers in the village alehouse his slow, infrequent sentences, may help to kill or keep alive the fatal superstitions which clog his race. Every hard-worked wife of an artisan may transmit to her children beliefs which shall knit society together, or rend it in pieces. No simplicity of mind, no obscurity of station, can escape the universal duty of questioning all that we believe.

As a good skeptic, I'm skeptical that it is right to be skeptical about my skepticism :shifty:

Some of us weirdos revel in our weirdness

And as an aspiring perfect skeptic, I'm skeptical as to whether I can ever be skeptical enough in regards to skepticism to attain perfect skepticism concerning my skepticism or whether I'm...losing my mind.

I don't know even know whether I don't know whether I don't know or (k)not. :detective:

If you mean that what you believe does not affect what happened, of course, I agree. But that does not mean that it does not matter what you believe. Do you think that it does not matter whether someone's head is filled with rubbish or not? Don't you think the world would be better off if people were more reasonable? Don't you think it is unfortunate that many people waste time and effort on things that are not going to work, and are such that they should have known that they do not work? For example, don't you think it is a bad thing that people waste their money on fraudulent products and services?

IAs William Kingdon Clifford expressed it:



The Ethics of Belief

That is where we disagree. What is fair is to weigh the evidence impartially and without prejudice, to consider what is most likely, and to believe in proportion to the evidence. Now, it might be the case that sometimes it is unwise to express one's disbelief, but that does not mean that one ought in such cases to believe something for unworthy reasons. It may be, for example, an impossible task to convince your grandfather that he is mistaken, and it may upset him and strain your relationship with him, so it might not be worth discussing the matter with him. But that does not make it in any way reasonable to believe he is correct.

With the story of my teleportation, it would not be reasonable to believe it no matter what I said. Even though I have never lied to you in the past. (And, if you have been reading carefully, you will be able to tell that I am likely telling the truth in this thread as well, as I have not actually claimed to be able to teleport.)

If you express belief in such stories, you encourage people to tell them. And consequently you help further superstitious nonsense. As Clifford expressed it:



So, I very much disagree with your assertion that it doesn't matter what you think happened.

Can we assume that "belief" or "faith" has no effect on the situation at hand? Ecluding the "supernatural" it's obvious, in my opinion, that those with a stubborn confidence in success are more likely to succeed. They think they can so they do.

This doesn't mean I want to stick pins in voodoo dolls.

---------- Post added 05-13-2010 at 03:46 PM ----------

Well, this thread is derailed, and I must confess my own little piece of guilt.

sure I do, but at the same time, I can look at history and note that the many have always believed the few were foolish, right until they accomplished something that is.
I agree that we have to go by the evidence in cases where we are not witness to that something.

But I disagree that is fair to call someone a lier or diluted if they say something or did something that we didn't or couldn't.
As I said, it seems much more reasonable to me to say, ''while that is all well and good, it remains trivial to me since I couldn't get it to work or do it''

Firstly that is a very well said passage and in terms of the passage, I am not so much believing someones claim of a miracle as allowing for the possibility.

With me, I typically, at least on this site, never try and get someone to believe in something as much as I try and get them to allow for the possibility of something. As I said, if we cannot reporduce the event then it becomes trival, be it true or be it false. It crosses the line, to me though, to call someone a lier for it though.

I don't expect someone who has not experienced God themselves to believe in God for this very reason. Proof and evidence only matters to those who are looking for validation. Take a miracle, or God for example. Say I experience a miracle; I may tell the whole world of what I have experienced and they may not believe me since there is no evidence to support my claim. But having no evidence simply means they were not able to reproduce or corroborate my claim, it has no bearing on the truth what I actually experienced right or wrong. Clifford even says that someone can believing something without evidence and that belief can be correct, but he simply maintains this is an overall bad thing. I don't necessarily disagree but I do maintain that personal experience is an evidence if but to no one but yourself.

Next, comes the idea of what one would rather get out of life. Is is more important to you to hold true beliefs or not hold a false beliefs? For me, it is more important to hold true beliefs. All this really means is that, at times, I am more willing to go out on a limb with my beliefs in an attempt to hold something that is true at the risk of being wrong, while others(and I believe Clifford would certainly fall in this category) will reserve judgment on a belief in general as to not risk possibly being wrong. The trade off is that they will miss out on holding true beliefs due to their doubt.

it not so much that I believe such stories as I am willing to stipulate for the possibility while maintaining its overall unimportance to all those unaffected. If you can fly but you can only do so when no one is watching, it becomes a trivial fact be it true or false. Do you not agree?

There is a difference between calling someone a liar or deluded, and believing that the person is a liar or deluded. So if you are worried about being polite, that need not enter into the matter, as I am not advocating telling every liar you meet that he or she is a liar, or telling every deluded person that he or she is deluded. You can believe someone is a liar without rudely stating the truth, as one may generally keep quiet about such things if one wishes.

I am a bit unclear on your precise meaning. Do you mean that you wish to be polite, and not contradict the person verbally or in writing, or are you saying that you take claims seriously, no matter how ridiculous they may be? Is there nothing too absurd for you to not take it seriously and not regard it as a possibility?

Personal experience is obviously evidence. But when one has an experience of some kind or other, there is always the issue of what it is that one has experienced. For example, suppose you hear a voice from on high, and it says that it is god talking. There are several possibilities. One is that god is talking to you. Another is that the devil is talking to you, trying to fool you. Another is that someone is playing a trick on you. Another is that you are hallucinating. The exact circumstances will give us a clue about which of these is most likely. For example, if one has just taken a massive amount of LSD, hallucinating is a very strong possibility. Or if one has mental problems and one is prone to hallucinations, then that is a reason to think that that is probably what is happening. Another thing known to cause hallucinations is a lack of oxygen to the brain. This most often occurs when there is a lack of proper blood flow to the brain, as when someone has a heart attack.

If we look at near death experiences, for example, people are typically such that their brains are oxygen deprived, and so they often hallucinate. People tend to interpret these hallucinations in accordance with their beliefs. Thus, Christians imagine that they are confirmations of Christianity, Muslims imagine that they are confirmations of Islam, etc. The reality is, they are hallucinating, and this is known to be the case, but most people do not bother with researching what is going on with their experiences, and simply believe whatever they want to about them. It is important to note that they are not being dishonest; they really believe that they have had some great mystical experience. But their experience has a very mundane cause, and is no sign of anything supernatural at all.

If we look at the Bible and its recommendations for prayer, it is a guide for how to have hallucinations. One of the things to do is fasting. It is known that fasting for a few days can cause hallucinations. Another thing to do is "pray in your closet". It is known that sensory deprivation can cause hallucinations (do some research into "sensory deprivation chambers" for more on that). Some native Americans take a more direct approach and recommend peyote, but the essential idea is the same: Do something to induce hallucinations.

I think you should read the entire book at:

The Ethics of Belief

A.J. Burger has something to say about your remarks here in connection with William James saying something very similar to your remarks:

pyrrho wrote:

there is a difference between calling someone a liar or deluded, and believing that the person is a liar or deluded. So if you are worried about being polite, that need not enter into the matter, as i am not advocating telling every liar you meet that he or she is a liar, or telling every deluded person that he or she is deluded. You can believe someone is a liar without rudely stating the truth, as one may generally keep quiet about such things if one wishes.

indeed there is a difference. What i am saying is not about being polite but about rejected someone's claim outright while having not actually witnessed it especially if you have no previous reason to doubt the person.

pyrrho wrote:

i am a bit unclear on your precise meaning. Do you mean that you wish to be polite, and not contradict the person verbally or in writing, or are you saying that you take claims seriously, no matter how ridiculous they may be? Is there nothing too absurd for you to not take it seriously and not regard it as a possibility?

if i do not personally witness the event of the claim, then it would be bit presumptuous to immediately believe they are lying. If i then test out what they have claimed and find that i cannot reproduce their results, then it is still presumptuous to believe they lied. It seems much more reasonable to me to say i don't know if they are or are not lying, but whether they are lying or not doesn't matter because i couldn't reproduce their results, therefore it becomes unimportant to me personally whether what they say is true or not.

pyrrho wrote:

personal experience is obviously evidence. But when one has an experience of some kind or other, there is always the issue of what it is that one has experienced. For example, suppose you hear a voice from on high, and it says that it is god talking. There are several possibilities. One is that god is talking to you. Another is that the devil is talking to you, trying to fool you. Another is that someone is playing a trick on you. Another is that you are hallucinating. The exact circumstances will give us a clue about which of these is most likely. For example, if one has just taken a massive amount of lsd, hallucinating is a very strong possibility. Or if one has mental problems and one is prone to hallucinations, then that is a reason to think that that is probably what is happening. Another thing known to cause hallucinations is a lack of oxygen to the brain. This most often occurs when there is a lack of proper blood flow to the brain, as when someone has a heart attack.

i both agree while still realizing this does not exclude the possibility that their experience was legitimate.

pyrrho wrote:

if we look at near death experiences, for example, people are typically such that their brains are oxygen deprived, and so they often hallucinate. People tend to interpret these hallucinations in accordance with their beliefs. Thus, christians imagine that they are confirmations of christianity, muslims imagine that they are confirmations of islam, etc. The reality is, they are hallucinating, and this is known to be the case, but most people do not bother with researching what is going on with their experiences, and simply believe whatever they want to about them. It is important to note that they are not being dishonest; they really believe that they have had some great mystical experience. But their experience has a very mundane cause, and is no sign of anything supernatural at all.

If we look at the bible and its recommendations for prayer, it is a guide for how to have hallucinations. One of the things to do is fasting. It is known that fasting for a few days can cause hallucinations. Another thing to do is "pray in your closet". It is known that sensory deprivation can cause hallucinations (do some research into "sensory deprivation chambers" for more on that). Some native americans take a more direct approach and recommend peyote, but the essential idea is the same: Do something to induce hallucinations.

this entire quote, to me, is a textbook example of the genetic fallacy.

pyrrho wrote:

i think you should read the entire book at:

the ethics of belief

a.j. Burger has something to say about your remarks here in connection with william james saying something very similar to your remarks:

apparently i should. Well i respectfully disagree with mr. Burger because i think he undervalues the implications of the difference between gaining as many true beliefs as possible vs. Gaining as few false beliefs as possible. It seems that he would hold a similar view to the man who thinks it would be better to be blind because one may certainly view many bad things while not realizing the overwhelming amount of great things that will overshadow the bad.

I do think it is somewhat funny and even somewhat hypocritical that he thinks he is justified in calling someone a lier for a miracle claim while risking the possibility that he is wrong.

It would seem that a more logical response would be to simply reserve judgment entirely.

One can obviously always look at life from the sideline never forming an opinion, never asking a girl out, never getting involved for fear of being rejected, for fear of being wrong, for fear of failure, but such a life, to me, is no life at all.

Einstein did not worry that prior to 1921(or whatever year...i forget exactly) the theory of relativity was thought of as nonsense and neither did many others throughout history. in fact i would argue that the people who have achieved the most important discoveries and inventions throughout history, were those men and woman who formed a belief when no one else felt they were justified.

a justified belief is only important on a subjective scale. Believing something is justified is about what the amount of evidence necessary for you to personally feel your opinion is reasonable; nothing more.


As i added in my previous post, which you may not have saw, i actually think that mr. Clifford would maintain it is better to be wrong while claiming that something is false than it is to be right while claiming something is true with no corroboration from others. And i don't see his claim itself to be justifiable.

Justified belief only matters to the extent that you feel the evidence suffices. If i see something with my own eyes, that may be enough for me to be justified in my belief ,while my having seen something, might not be enough to justify someone else's belief in what i saw.

Justified belief only matters to the extent that you feel the evidence suffices. If I see something with my own eyes, that may be enough for me to be justified in my belief ,while my having seen something, might not be enough to justify someone else's belief in what I saw.

Lying is only one of the possibilities. In every post, I have been careful to point out that the person may be mistaken in what they state. So, I agree that it would be presumptuous to suppose that every ridiculous story was a lie, as it may be that the person honestly believes what they are saying.

As for whether it is important to you personally or not, many times stories of miracles are purported to support some religion or other, typically with the message that if you do not convert to that one, you will be punished. If that is true, then it surely does matter to you, even if, at the moment, you think it is unimportant.






????





Combined with your remarks above, it would appear that you believe that if I induce hallucinations of visits from god by using massive amounts of LSD, it really is god talking to me. Is that what you are saying, or do you mean something else?

Also, I think you need to reread a textbook on the genetic fallacy. We are in this case talking about what the experience is, and what caused it. If I see a man flying, and it is caused by me watching a movie, don't you think that is relevant to whether or not I really saw someone fly, or just saw what appeared to be someone flying?






No. He or she is not advocating being blind. He or she is advocating believing in proportion to the evidence. There is no advocating that one shirk away from harsh truths in that essay.





Neither Burger nor I make the mistake of supposing that the only alternative to the story being true is that the person is lying. That is one possibility. Another is that the person is mistaken.

Also, if you wanted to always avoid being wrong, you would need to suspend judgment always, as it is always possible to make a mistake. Neither Clifford nor Burger advocate that, nor do I.





The most logical response is to believe in proportion to the evidence. Reserving judgment is only reasonable when there is insufficient evidence to make a determination. You don't withhold judgement on everything, do you?





You are again sounding like William James in his essay "The Will to Believe". I think it would be best for you to read the book, and then start a thread about it so we can discuss it. If I fail to notice the new thread, you can send me a private message to give me a link to your new thread and let me know of its existence.

However, in case you do not do that, there is a difference between an action and a belief. With your example of asking a girl out, one can do that action without first having the belief that she will say "yes". Often times, the point in asking a question is to find out the answer.





Other people regarding you as justified and you being justified are two different things.




I think it would be best for me to wait until you have read the book, and start a new thread about it. You may then, if you wish, detail what you think is wrong with Clifford and Burger. Of course, they might convince you if you read them in their entirety, but we can wait and see.

Wouldn't it have to depend on the circumstances?

Also, I really don't know what the phrase "believe in proportion to the evidence", and that seems quite a strange thing to say. Can I believe something a little bit? I mean either I believe something or I don't.

to an extent. but taking an hallucinogen and seeing God doesn't necessarily imply you didn't infact see God. And I mean necessarily in a logical manner in this instance.

I believe some things a little, and some other things a lot more. And I really do try to proportion my belief to the evidence. .