|
Post by thefleetsin on Apr 12, 2017 14:40:04 GMT
delusional happy-speak can be found in all cultures, through out recorded history.
it can make our inevitable end seem less daunting and permanent.
and still there is no god on earth or far off firmament...
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Apr 12, 2017 15:18:53 GMT
I like your horse racing analogy. But in the case of religion there's a bet on the race so both sides are keen to keep arguing that their horse won... If religion and the religious were content to keep their beliefs and their morality to themselves then it would be the equivalent of both people agreeing to disagree on which horse won. But whilst they are trying to get laws passed that affect non-believers too and they keep trying to force their beliefs on defenseless children, we have to keep arguing about something that can never be settled. That is the problem in a nutshell. And the problem that the Founding Fathers tried to solve by separating church and state; abide by these secular laws (that have been voted on by all citizens and the majority voted for this) and, if you do not break these secular laws, you have the right to believe whatever you want, as long as it does not infringe on someone else's right to believe.
It was a great idea. And, in America at the time it was implemented, was in theory do-able. But in this very different world, with an exponential increase in population and the need to interact globally with all nations, I see an erosion of its do-ability. I think religion will always be divisive. I'm not sure that it is the fault of religion itself, or the fault of humans that they cannot just live and let live. Religion may be the symptom or manifestation of a basic human trait to be competitive.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Apr 12, 2017 15:50:37 GMT
In horse races, we wait for the fotofinish. In religion, there is no fotofinish available. Yet. Right, but before we have the fotofinish, the rational thing to do is suspend judgement. The mere fact that there is no "higher authority" we can appeal to in weightier debates such as religion doesn't show that it's rational to remain committed to our beliefs. Surely it would only show that we should suspend judgement permanently (or at least until a "higher authority" is found)? Suppose, for example, that when we look at the film of the horse race, it turns out to be severely damaged for some reason and so no longer shows which horse won. Would it then become reasonable for you to insist that horse A won? Surely not - you would have to admit that you'll never have good reason to believe one way or the other. Wrong. You have a reason to believe that horse A won: You saw it happen. And likewise, the person who believes that horse B won also has a reason to believe that horse B won: They saw it happen. Sports history is full of ambiguous decisions and disagreements. I am not too interested in horse races, but I watch soccer games. If I had a dollar for all the penalties that should not have been given, or penalties that should have been given but weren't, as well as goals which may or may not have been scored from an off-side position... I might be able to post this from my private island. These are instances where even the referees later admit that they might have been wrong. But in the end, they decide. As for horse races. The race direction will declare horse A or horse B a winner; even if this decision might be wrong. The rational thing to do is to accept the decision of the director of the game/race. But who says that we should do the rational thing? Some people may argue that the rational thing to do is not to follow sports events at all. But if you do, you usually have an emotional investment. Maybe you support a team or horse, or you like betting on sports events. In this case, you may feel that you have been robbed; even if feeling this may not be rational. But you don't have to be rational. Emotions are part of what makes following sports exciting. Likewise, in religion, people may have an emotional investment. And that's fine as long as they respect each other. There is no race or game direction that says which religion is right; unless a state just declares a religion the state religion, or atheism mandatory. But governments change. And when I said at the beginning that followers of a horse race saw horse A or B win; likewise there may be people who believe they have evidence for their religion being right. But different people have different evidence, and objective evidence is unavailable for humans. So the answer is: Agree to disagree. You don't have to suspend judgement. You can believe one side if you have an emotional investment in it. But if others believe differently, you have to accept this. And if you don't have an emotional investment (because you don't care about religion or sports), then let those who do have it be; as long as they respect you.
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Apr 12, 2017 17:47:21 GMT
It always amuses me to see an 'intelligent' person argue with someone 1:1 about who is right about something.
IMO smart people don't care that much if someone else is wrong about something and they're not overly invested in proving they're right and others are wrong. Smart people choose their battles and realize that it's impossible and generally not worth the time to prove every stupid person is wrong.
If you're arguing about something and nobody can be definitively proved right it seems pointless to me.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 13, 2017 6:28:58 GMT
I don't like the analogy. Like religion, it is simplistic nonsense without foundation. Perhaps you could explain in a little more detail where you think the analogy goes wrong? As OpiateOfTheMasses said, the argument rests on the outcomes of either decision. If you have an 'intellectual' or 'philosphical' argument, without consequences, it doesn't matter who wins. If, however, the theists wins and forces their beliefs on others, the outcome is patently unfair. It is not so for the atheist, as an absence of belief is a passive argument, without consequences. (please don't carry on about communism etc as it is a red herring)
|
|
|
Post by scienceisgod on Apr 13, 2017 6:50:24 GMT
Perhaps you could explain in a little more detail where you think the analogy goes wrong? As OpiateOfTheMasses said, the argument rests on the outcomes of either decision. If you have an 'intellectual' or 'philosphical' argument, without consequences, it doesn't matter who wins. If, however, the theists wins and forces their beliefs on others, the outcome is patently unfair. It is not so for the atheist, as an absence of belief is a passive argument, without consequences. (please don't carry on about communism etc as it is a red herring) Kinda like racism. It's not enough for the anti-racist to be anti-racist on his own. He can't permit racism to exist anywhere. Sounds like a religion.
|
|
|
Post by 🌵 on Apr 13, 2017 12:31:02 GMT
It's essentially my take on the is-ought problem. We can say it is rational to do X if you want Y. But we can't say it is rational to want Y. All our wants are ultimately irrational. Including the want to behave as rationally as possible. Therefore since it is irrational to always want to be rational, I don't mind being irrational at times. So if I don't want to back down on an issue I care a lot about, yes I am irrational. But it would be just as irrational for me to want to back down for the sake of being more rational. "Reason is and ought only to be the slave of the passions" and all that. Okay, thanks for explaining. A couple of points. First, I don't agree that all our wants are ultimately irrational. I would rather say that such wants are neither rational nor irrational; they are arational or nonrational. Second, I'm curious, how do you decide in which circumstances to be rational? Is it just based on what you feel like at the time? The argument that we should suspend judgement is of course directed at people who care about rationality. If you don't care about rationality, then in general there's no need to consider any arguments or evidence. You can believe whatever you want. To clarify, I don't in general champion neutrality. I don't agree that we should suspend judgement in response to disagreement. I'm merely presenting that view for discussion. But to answer your question, why hold one view rather than the others? Well, because that is the view that I think the evidence and arguments support. When I do philosophy, I'm interested in figuring out what the facts are, or at least figuring out what the limits are to my ability to know the facts. Are colours reducible to spectral reflectances? "Who cares?" is a perfectly fine response for some people. However, I care because I'd like to know how the world works. I suspect that most defenders of the conciliatory view would say that avoiding false beliefs is more important than holding true beliefs. If you want to hold true beliefs, and you're not too concerned about making mistakes, then the conciliatory view is probably a bad principle since it requires you to give up so many beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by 🌵 on Apr 13, 2017 12:35:38 GMT
Suppose we are watching a horse race. The race is close, but I was attending very carefully and I'm sure I saw horse A win. However, you were also attending very closely, and you're sure you saw horse B win. Assuming that neither of us is drunk, tired, or otherwise impaired, it seems that in this situation we should suspend judgement about whether A or B won the race. One of us must be wrong, and I have no reason to think that you're more likely to have made a mistake than me. So it would be irrational for me to retain my belief that A won. An issue I have with these discussions, a debate about belief in god should be prefaced with a clarification of what one imagines god to be. I find this can cut the disagreements down significantly.
That said, in most cases the difference is most I know that don't 'believe' in god are doing just that... suspending their belief until evidence is provided to confirm, even willing to accept, at least in this life, that they may never have such confirmation. The believer is usually the one insisting on the winner before confirmation, to the point of building entire religions around the unconfirmed winner of the horse race... putting the Pope's wagon before the horse, so to speak.Yes, there certainly are plenty of people who already suspend judgement. However, there are also people who would say that they are sure that god does not exist; more commonly, there are people who say it is very unlikely that god exists. So there are plenty of non-believers who go beyond mere suspension of judgement.
|
|
|
Post by 🌵 on Apr 13, 2017 12:40:19 GMT
Right, but before we have the fotofinish, the rational thing to do is suspend judgement. The mere fact that there is no "higher authority" we can appeal to in weightier debates such as religion doesn't show that it's rational to remain committed to our beliefs. Surely it would only show that we should suspend judgement permanently (or at least until a "higher authority" is found)? Suppose, for example, that when we look at the film of the horse race, it turns out to be severely damaged for some reason and so no longer shows which horse won. Would it then become reasonable for you to insist that horse A won? Surely not - you would have to admit that you'll never have good reason to believe one way or the other. Wrong. You have a reason to believe that horse A won: You saw it happen. And likewise, the person who believes that horse B won also has a reason to believe that horse B won: They saw it happen. Well, I thought I saw horse A win. And that is indeed a reason to believe that horse A won. The problem is that I also have just as a good a reason to believe that horse B won. Of course, if you're not moved even by the horse race example, then I agree that you probably don't have much reason to worry about weightier disagreements.
|
|
|
Post by 🌵 on Apr 13, 2017 12:45:09 GMT
Perhaps you could explain in a little more detail where you think the analogy goes wrong? As OpiateOfTheMasses said, the argument rests on the outcomes of either decision. If you have an 'intellectual' or 'philosphical' argument, without consequences, it doesn't matter who wins. If, however, the theists wins and forces their beliefs on others, the outcome is patently unfair. It is not so for the atheist, as an absence of belief is a passive argument, without consequences. (please don't carry on about communism etc as it is a red herring) The question of "forcing beliefs on others" is tangential. Suppose the person who thought that horse B won tried to force you to adopt his belief. That wouldn't make it reasonable to believe that horse A won instead. You should suspend judgement. Notice that suspending judgement is one way to resist holding the belief that horse B won. Similarly, one way to resist theism is to argue that we should suspend judgement about the existence of god. Insofar as somebody who suspends does not believe in god, they would be classed as an atheist per a common usage of that term (e.g. "negative atheism" is defined as a person who simply doesn't believe in god; this of course covers suspension of judgement). Anyway, there are plenty of theists who do not force their beliefs on others. I have no idea what the "communism" comment is about. I've never even mentioned communism is on this board, let alone "carried on" about it.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Apr 13, 2017 13:11:19 GMT
First, I don't agree that all our wants are ultimately irrational. I would rather say that such wants are neither rational nor irrational; they are arational or nonrational. A fair distinction. But it doesn't really change my point too much. There is no rational reason to be rational all the time (even if I concede your point that it's too far to say it is "irrational" to be rational all the time). Not quite. 99.9% of the time I am quite happy to be rational, but where rationality would take me down a path I consider very distasteful or if acting without rationality would give me some great benefit, I would say so much the worse for rationality. Of course you could argue these are rational considerations in and of themselves I suppose. Here's a genuine example. I was discussing homosexuality with someone on the old IMDB (I forget his full username, began with "pwr" I think). I made the point that even if he or anyone else could demonstrate that homosexuality was categorically wrong, I would still act as if it was not wrong because in that instance acting in accordance with what I felt was right is more important to me than acting with what was demonstrably right. Many would probably consider my position there irrational or at the very least non-rational. Another example is I generally support the kind of pragmatic fideism William James championed. While I accept atheism is probably the more rational stance, if you get a lot out of a religious belief, I see no harm in you having it. After all, what's so wrong about being wrong? Again, some might (and certainly some have!) accuse this of being an irrational position. Although you could say my position is rational, but simply does not value truth as much as most do. It's not like I don't care about it. It's just I only care up to a point. Fair enough. So what would be your own response to the conciliatory view? And that's fine for you. My own view on philosophy is that it is not a quest for facts but a quest for what is worthwhile. Which is probably why the conciliatory view doesn't do much for me though I can understand why others might have more time for it. Makes sense. I see nothing wrong with holding false beliefs so long as they don't harm other things you want out of life. I see no benefit in holding true beliefs unless they help you gain something you want out of life.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Apr 13, 2017 19:46:27 GMT
I don't think it's a particularly good analogy because in the horse race example the only relevant piece of information is what each of you saw, and you simply disagree on what it is. In that case, the only thing you CAN do is withhold judgment until more information/evidence is presented to prove one side correct.
When it comes to the existence of God the relevant information spans information from fields as large as science and philosophy to individual/personal experience. In fact, I'd argue that it's nearly impossible that any two people come at this issue with the same priors, background, or level of relevant information. Beyond the information, I'd equally argue that there's rarely and equality in intelligence or rationality, and the latter is just as important a factor as the former. Someone could conceivably be much more intelligent than someone else, but be far less rational and thus arrive at erroneous conclusions.
So, no, I don't think it's necessary to suspend judgment, but if you're being honest with yourself and genuinely seeking truth then you should be open to learning and correcting your ignorance when it comes to the relevant fields, as well as being open to considering the strongest arguments and evidence that the other side puts forth. In fact, when I went through my "agnostic" (in the "I'm really not sure" sense) phase, after I really started doubting my prior theistic beliefs, it was, in large part, my observation that theistic arguments seemed far more ignorant of various relevant information/fields (especially from science, but also from some philosophy) than the reverse that played a large part in my eventual conversion to atheism.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Apr 13, 2017 19:52:37 GMT
quote]That sounds more like "I don't want to suspend judgement" than "I can't suspend judgement". We can say it is rational to do X if you want Y. But we can't say it is rational to want Y. All our wants are ultimately irrational. Including the want to behave as rationally as possible. Therefore since it is irrational to always want to be rational, I don't mind being irrational at times. I basically agree with Cactus that what you're describing is really arational or non-rational rather than irrational. Rationality is better thought of as a method of correct thinking, like science is a method of empirical investigation. I don't think most people desire to be rational because they desire being rational; rather, I think they desire OTHER things and think rationality is the best means of achieving them; or, to quote a cheesy line from Yudkowsky, rationality is formalized winning. You can argue that this might not always be case, but I think most of the times such arguments are possible in theory if impossible to prove in practice. EG, we've agreed before that if rationality lead us down a road that would make us so miserable we'd kill ourselves that it would be better to not be rational, but in practice it's generally impossible to know if that's the case. It's also generally hard to know whether the positives of believing something false that makes us happy outweighs whatever negatives might come with believing in something that's false.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Apr 13, 2017 20:27:55 GMT
It's also generally hard to know whether the positives of believing something false that makes us happy outweighs whatever negatives might come with believing in something that's false. Isn't that a risk we take with anything that makes us happy? Plus how much risk is there really in the instances I'm talking about? For example if we believe that Jesus died for our sins, what's the worst that can happen if we're wrong?
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Apr 13, 2017 20:57:40 GMT
It's also generally hard to know whether the positives of believing something false that makes us happy outweighs whatever negatives might come with believing in something that's false. Isn't that a risk we take with anything that makes us happy? Plus how much risk is there really in the instances I'm talking about? For example if we believe that Jesus died for our sins, what's the worst that can happen if we're wrong? I'd say that is a risk we inevitably take, but the irrational part would be in believing that just because it makes you happy means that the deleterious aspects don't exist or eventually won't outweigh your happiness. I think this attitude is quite prevalent in smokers, eg. It would depend on the exact issue at hand. I don't think believing "Jesus died for our sins" is harmful in isolation, but such beliefs are rarely isolated or don't lead to other beliefs that could have negative consequences.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Apr 13, 2017 21:18:03 GMT
Isn't that a risk we take with anything that makes us happy? Plus how much risk is there really in the instances I'm talking about? For example if we believe that Jesus died for our sins, what's the worst that can happen if we're wrong? I'd say that is a risk we inevitably take, but the irrational part would be in believing that just because it makes you happy means that the deleterious aspects don't exist or eventually won't outweigh your happiness. I think this attitude is quite prevalent in smokers, eg. It would depend on the exact issue at hand. I don't think believing "Jesus died for our sins" is harmful in isolation, but such beliefs are rarely isolated or don't lead to other beliefs that could have negative consequences. I wouldn't disagree too much with any of that. There's definitely room for nuanced assessment of the cost/benefit analysis of any belief we hold and any secondary beliefs our belief entails.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 14, 2017 4:47:20 GMT
As OpiateOfTheMasses said, the argument rests on the outcomes of either decision. If you have an 'intellectual' or 'philosphical' argument, without consequences, it doesn't matter who wins. If, however, the theists wins and forces their beliefs on others, the outcome is patently unfair. It is not so for the atheist, as an absence of belief is a passive argument, without consequences. (please don't carry on about communism etc as it is a red herring) The question of "forcing beliefs on others" is tangential. Suppose the person who thought that horse B won tried to force you to adopt his belief. That wouldn't make it reasonable to believe that horse A won instead. You should suspend judgement. Notice that suspending judgement is one way to resist holding the belief that horse B won. Similarly, one way to resist theism is to argue that we should suspend judgement about the existence of god. Insofar as somebody who suspends does not believe in god, they would be classed as an atheist per a common usage of that term (e.g. "negative atheism" is defined as a person who simply doesn't believe in god; this of course covers suspension of judgement). Anyway, there are plenty of theists who do not force their beliefs on others. I have no idea what the "communism" comment is about. I've never even mentioned communism is on this board, let alone "carried on" about it. Thanks, You just perfectly illustrated how this analogy is not applicable to an argument of whether God exists or not. There are facts ( provable by evidence ) and fantasy in terms of belief. It is not tangential at all to see the effects of these differences. Either horse A won or horse B or as I said previously it was a dead heat. These are facts. It doesn't matter who accepts the facts as long as their decision doesn't impinge on the life of someone else.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 14, 2017 9:24:35 GMT
Suppose we are watching a horse race. The race is close, but I was attending very carefully and I'm sure I saw horse A win. However, you were also attending very closely, and you're sure you saw horse B win. Assuming that neither of us is drunk, tired, or otherwise impaired, it seems that in this situation we should suspend judgement about whether A or B won the race. One of us must be wrong, and I have no reason to think that you're more likely to have made a mistake than me. So it would be irrational for me to retain my belief that A won. Recently, a number of philosophers have argued that the same is the case for the more "weighty" disagreements that are found in philosophy, science, history, etc. It seems that people who are equally intelligent and equally well-informed about the relevant evidence and arguments can arrive at different conclusions about various issues. Plenty of intelligent, well-informed people believe in god; plenty of intelligent, well-informed people believe there is no god*. Both groups cannot be correct; and since they are about equally intelligent and well-informed, then it seems that neither has a good reason to think that the opposing side is more likely to have made the mistake. So they should all suspend judgement. What do you think? Should we suspend judgement whenever we encounter intelligent, well-informed people who disagree with us? If not, what is the difference between disagreements such as the horse race example, and more "weighty" disagreements such as the existence of god? * If you hold that intelligent, well-informed people are not to be found on both sides of the debate about god, just use a different example. For instance: plenty of intelligent, well-informed people are moral realists; plenty of intelligent, well-informed people are moral antirealists. Sometimes even the best analogies fall short, especially where religion is involved and the horse race is an example. Intelligence is difficult to measure anyway, but especially where religion is involved. There are two separate and distinct issues with the existence of a god. One is the existence of the abstract ethical system at the heart of monotheism. That one has been around for millennia. The other is the existence noticed in modern times, especially immediately post Darwin, of the intelligent designer. The first issue is highly social in nature. It deals with things science cannot. The second is not a religious issue at all, but a matter of science. Science and religion require different skill sets and a person might be quite good at science and fail religion, another might be quite good at religion and fail science. In either case many people pass for "intelligent" who merely copy the better theologians and scientists. Those who do not merely copy and do well at one discipline likely do well at the other, and the best scientists believe in a god and an intelligent designer. Lately the copying has gotten far out of hand. Much of the genuine art in either discipline is lost on the general public. They have little or no appreciation of religion or science and often confuse the two. A particularly noticeable problem lately is that they are copying what "most" people think and most people don't think. We are presently under the thumb of a very unqualified majority. There are no "intelligent" people who fail to see the abstract ethical system at the heart of monotheism. Failing religion is not intelligent. There are no "intelligent" people who fail to see the necessity of an intelligent designer, at least not today. In Darwin's time with that primitive science some moderately intelligent people did believe science might one day explain the origin of life. With modern science people who still believe that are either intellectually impaired or lying, most likely lying. Then there are all those people in the general public who copy the liars. The unqualified majority currently in charge is indeed a difficult problem to solve, especially in a "democracy." It is difficult to convince the copiers they're wrong when they're in the majority. It will be necessary for them to fail in ways obvious enough that even they can see it. Only then will they change their political and scientific stances. The failure of the Republicans to reform health care is just the first step. There is much more to come. Eventually the so called "religious" who are trying to solve problems without overturning Kitzmiller v. Dover will realize they need to do that.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 14, 2017 20:55:44 GMT
Suppose we are watching a horse race. The race is close, but I was attending very carefully and I'm sure I saw horse A win. However, you were also attending very closely, and you're sure you saw horse B win. Assuming that neither of us is drunk, tired, or otherwise impaired, it seems that in this situation we should suspend judgement about whether A or B won the race. One of us must be wrong, and I have no reason to think that you're more likely to have made a mistake than me. So it would be irrational for me to retain my belief that A won. Recently, a number of philosophers have argued that the same is the case for the more "weighty" disagreements that are found in philosophy, science, history, etc. It seems that people who are equally intelligent and equally well-informed about the relevant evidence and arguments can arrive at different conclusions about various issues. Plenty of intelligent, well-informed people believe in god; plenty of intelligent, well-informed people believe there is no god*. Both groups cannot be correct; and since they are about equally intelligent and well-informed, then it seems that neither has a good reason to think that the opposing side is more likely to have made the mistake. So they should all suspend judgement. What do you think? Should we suspend judgement whenever we encounter intelligent, well-informed people who disagree with us? If not, what is the difference between disagreements such as the horse race example, and more "weighty" disagreements such as the existence of god? * If you hold that intelligent, well-informed people are not to be found on both sides of the debate about god, just use a different example. For instance: plenty of intelligent, well-informed people are moral realists; plenty of intelligent, well-informed people are moral antirealists. Sometimes even the best analogies fall short, especially where religion is involved and the horse race is an example. Intelligence is difficult to measure anyway, but especially where religion is involved. There are two separate and distinct issues with the existence of a god. One is the existence of the abstract ethical system at the heart of monotheism. That one has been around for millennia. The other is the existence noticed in modern times, especially immediately post Darwin, of the intelligent designer. The first issue is highly social in nature. It deals with things science cannot. The second is not a religious issue at all, but a matter of science. Science and religion require different skill sets and a person might be quite good at science and fail religion, another might be quite good at religion and fail science. In either case many people pass for "intelligent" who merely copy the better theologians and scientists. Those who do not merely copy and do well at one discipline likely do well at the other, and the best scientists believe in a god and an intelligent designer. Lately the copying has gotten far out of hand. Much of the genuine art in either discipline is lost on the general public. They have little or no appreciation of religion or science and often confuse the two. A particularly noticeable problem lately is that they are copying what "most" people think and most people don't think. We are presently under the thumb of a very unqualified majority. There are no "intelligent" people who fail to see the abstract ethical system at the heart of monotheism. Failing religion is not intelligent. There are no "intelligent" people who fail to see the necessity of an intelligent designer, at least not today. In Darwin's time with that primitive science some moderately intelligent people did believe science might one day explain the origin of life. With modern science people who still believe that are either intellectually impaired or lying, most likely lying. Then there are all those people in the general public who copy the liars. The unqualified majority currently in charge is indeed a difficult problem to solve, especially in a "democracy." It is difficult to convince the copiers they're wrong when they're in the majority. It will be necessary for them to fail in ways obvious enough that even they can see it. Only then will they change their political and scientific stances. The failure of the Republicans to reform health care is just the first step. There is much more to come. Eventually the so called "religious" who are trying to solve problems without overturning Kitzmiller v. Dover will realize they need to do that. Planet Arlon- a definition: Where the definition of intelligence relies on a belief in 'Intelligent Design'. Moreover, the corollary is that anyone who doe not believe what Arlon believes on Planet Arlon, is by definition 'unintelligent'.
|
|
|
Post by 🌵 on Apr 14, 2017 21:31:32 GMT
Not quite. 99.9% of the time I am quite happy to be rational, but where rationality would take me down a path I consider very distasteful or if acting without rationality would give me some great benefit, I would say so much the worse for rationality. Of course you could argue these are rational considerations in and of themselves I suppose. The problem with this is that if the rational response to disagreement (where your interlocutor is equally intelligent, equally well-informed, etc) is to suspend judgement, and you refuse to suspend judgement more than 0.01% of the time, then you're much more irrational than you present yourself as being. Let's say that in 1% of the debates you have with intelligent, well-informed interlocutors, you refuse to suspend judgement. Then, for somebody who accepts the conciliatory view, you're 10x more irrational than you claim. So I don't think it's good enough to respond to the conciliatory view by saying that you're happy to be irrational on occasions few and far between. Fair enough. So what would be your own response to the conciliatory view? In my view, there are persuasive arguments against the conciliatory view. The most important one for me is that it's self-undermining. Most people who defend it will try to provide arguments for it - certainly, if you want me to adopt a substantial epistemological principle like this, you'll need to provide a convincing argument. The horse race analogy might be reconstructed as an argument along these lines: (1) It is irrational to retain your belief that horse A won. (2) So, if there is no relevant difference between the horse race disagreement and weightier disagreements, then it is irrational to retain your beliefs in cases of weightier disagreements. (3) There is no relevant difference between the horse race disagreement and weightier disagreements. (C) So, it is irrational to retain your beliefs in cases of weightier disagreements. The problem is that for any argument you give for the conciliatory view, you can be sure that there will be intelligent, well-informed who disagree that the argument provides persuasive reason to accept the conciliatory view. So, if you accept the conciliatory view, you must suspend judgement about the force of your argument. So the conciliatory view is self-undermining: once you adopt it, you are forced to accept that none of the arguments for it are good enough to persuade those who hold a different view. Of course, it's possible that a defender of the conciliatory view will one day offer an argument that every intelligent, well-informed person will find persuasive. But I think that an induction on the history of philosophical debates suggests that this is extremely unlikely.
|
|