Pragmatic vs Rational Beliefs

[Michelle (Michelle Ols)]

Questions from ongoing discussion from On Euthyphro

@structureoftruth

We accept a belief pragmatically when we treat it as true because it is useful to do so, not because we have any justification for thinking it is true. Such a belief does not constitute knowledge - it lacks the justification part.

We accept a belief rationally when we have justification for it, and such a belief can constitute knowledge.

Am I understanding correctly that you are distinguishing between two different types of beliefs? I find this distinction helpful.

And the first case would include the idea that people believe in God (and/or the teachings in the Bible), because we find putting those beliefs into practice to be empirically relevant in our lives.

So would you say that both types of beliefs are equally valid? Or would that be a logical mistake to qualify different types of beliefs?

I’d also think that one could start holding a belief for the first reason, but then later gain more evidence/justification for that belief such that the belief would switch over to the second type.

I’m trying to think of other analogous beliefs to help in understanding the distinction. Maybe a bad analogy, but perhaps believing wearing a mask would protect you from getting COVID-19 during the beginning of the pandemic was a belief worth putting into practice for practical reasons in spite of our limited knowledge of how the virus spread at the time. However now with accumulated evidence of the effectiveness of masking a belief in wearing masks as being protective is justified with more knowledge

[Michelle (Michelle Ols)]

Since 3 of us had the questions and comments related to the idea of pragmatically formed vs rationally formed beliefs from @structureoftruth’s comments on the On Euthyphro thread, I thought the topic could be worthy of a separate discussion thread.

Copying @John_Harshman’s comments here instead of moving them fully over to preserve them on the old thread, as well

@John_Harshman

@structureoftruth

Beliefs which we are justified in believing even in the absence of arguments for them. As I’ve already said. Basic refers to the fact that they aren’t arrived at by inference.

Well, now. Those are two different things. Just because a belief isn’t arrived at by inference doesn’t mean we’re justified in believing it. Intuitions are frequently wrong. Which one of those two things does “basic” mean?

@structureoftruth

We accept a belief pragmatically when we treat it as true because it is useful to do so, not because we have any justification for thinking it is true.

That would include our beliefs about the existence of a reality corresponding to our senses, wouldn’t it?

@structureoftruth

The proper basicality of a belief counts as intrinsic justification for it

Why?

@structureoftruth

Applied to moral epistemology, at least some moral intuitions are properly basic, or we have no moral knowledge at all.

Again, why? Is this still true if we reject premise 0?

@structureoftruth

you could consider that I may, in fact, have reasons for my claims that I haven’t taken the time to repeat here

I’m willing to believe that you may, but I’m certainly not going to consider those unexpressed reasons as an argument in favor of your pont.

@structureoftruth

If there is no objective standard, our moral intuitions are false.

Just not true. Our moral intuitions could exist for good empirical reasons having nothing to do with objective standards. They could, for example, make for a society that would function better, with benefit to its members, than a society without them.

@structureoftruth

Go back and read what I wrote under premise 7b.

I did. I don’t see that it satisfies the conditions I stated.

@structureoftruth

Only vacuous if you have no idea what the terms are

I’d say that it’s vacuous if you have no satisfactory, clear idea what the terms are. If your vague idea of moral perfection is merely that it satisfies our intuitions, that’s not good enough to support a point, and I believe it destroys your point, as it sets an external standard.

@structureoftruth

Does this undercut my moral argument? My solution to the Euthyphro dilemma?

Yes, absolutely.

@structureoftruth

Keep in mind that how we know something and what makes something true (what grounds it in reality) are very often not the same thing.

I’m not sure what “grounds it in reality” means, if it isn’t a reason for believing that it’s true. If God acting in a way that fits our intuition is a reason for believing he he’s perfectly good, isn’t him acting in a way the doesn’t fit a reason for believing he isn’t?

@structureoftruth

Replace all mentions of “God” in my argument with the (far wordier) “a necessary being distinct from the natural world who is essentially morally perfect”.

Why are those three things necessarily conjoined? And of course if that’s the definition of God, then God is morally perfect by definition. We still have no reason to believe that this entity, whatever name you give it, is morally perfect.

Is a 6b entity necessary? Perhaps a flow chart would explain this better.

@structureoftruth

All I see - if naturalism is true - is matter moving around. Some of it makes noises.

Some of that matter is people. Do you really think that if naturalism is true there can be no morality? Is your religion all that keeps you from casually murdering strangers? I find this view incomprehensible, but I’m very glad that such people are religious.

@structureoftruth

For some areas of truth, that is true. For others - debatable.

You appear to be able to tell the difference, but I can’t see how.

[Faizal_Ali]

@structureoftruth

We accept a belief pragmatically when we treat it as true because it is useful to do so, not because we have any justification for thinking it is true. Such a belief does not constitute knowledge - it lacks the justification part. We accept a belief rationally when we have justification for it, and such a belief can constitute knowledge.

So what rational justification do you believe exists for properly basic beliefs?

[structureoftruth (Matthew Dickau)]

@Michelle

Am I understanding correctly that you are distinguishing between two different types of beliefs? I find this distinction helpful.

Not two different types of beliefs, per se, but two different ways of accepting beliefs.

@Michelle

And the first case would include the idea that people believe in God (and/or the teachings in the Bible), because we find putting those beliefs into practice to be empirically relevant in our lives.

I think belief in God is one that can be accepted on a pragmatic basis - pretty much all true beliefs can be accepted that way, after all - but it can also be accepted on a rational basis. And it is better to have rational justification for a belief you accept than not (assuming that justification is valid).

@Michelle

I’d also think that one could start holding a belief for the first reason, but then later gain more evidence/justification for that belief such that the belief would switch over to the second type.

Yes, I agree with that. In fact, it may be that there are some beliefs that you would never find rational justification for unless you first accepted them on a pragmatic basis. Belief in God could be like that, at least for some people.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@structureoftruth

Properly basic beliefs are a legitimate source of knowledge.

An example of a properly basic belief is they notion we have that other humans have minds like our own. We can’t prove this with confidence, yet we all believe it to be true, and in fact I say it is true. To deny it’s truth leads to all sorts of strange places.

Is that what you mean @structureoftruth?

[Michelle (Michelle Ols)]

@swamidass

An example of a properly basic belief is they notion we have that other humans have minds like our own. We can’t prove this with confidence, yet we all believe it to be true, and in fact I say it is true. To deny it’s truth leads to all sorts of strange places.

Thanks for that example of a pragmatic, properly basic belief.

It is how Alvin Plantinga reasons in his book “God and Other Minds,” right? Epistemologically, belief in God and belief in other minds are in the same boat.
“Belief in other minds is obviously perfectly rationale, so is belief in God”

I’d be interested in hearing what people think of this argument.

[Michelle (Michelle Ols)]

And then there is also the example of our rational belief in gravity. We have justification for that belief, because we feel and observe the effects of gravity.

However, our understanding of gravity also points to limits in the knowledge we get from science, and our need for different types/sources of knowledge. As John Lennox explains on p34-35 in “Can Science Explain Everything?”: The law of gravity gives us a way of calculating the effects of gravity for practical purposes, such as calculating the velocity of a rocket, but no one knows what gravity is, only how it operates. Lennox cites Newton as understanding this difference.

[Michelle (Michelle Ols)]

@Faizal_Ali

On Euthyphro

Exactly. What is the problem with that? Again, that is exactly the point. It is inconceivable, just as it is inconceivable for a Mac computer to run Windows. My position is that it is a possibility that these aspects of how we experience the world are a reflection of the properties of our mind, rather than of the world. It’s a weird thought, I agree, but I do not see how it is any less plausible than the belief that all of material reality including causation, and space-time is somehow “grounded” in some person who is immaterial, uncaused and unextended in space and time. I’ve never heard anyone even try to explain how that is supposed to work.

I’ve never heard anyone even try to explain how that is supposed to work.

Do you need to know how something works to know that it works, or that it exists?

[Mark10.45 (Mark McGowan)]

@structureoftruth

I think belief in God is one that can be accepted on a pragmatic basis

I would say that it depends on the perspective of the individual that matters. Belief in God is pragmatic and basic for a believer and theoretical/ideological for an unbeliever. So, arguing that belief in God is pragmatic and basic to an unbeliever does not resonate with them because in their mind it is in fact not.

[r_speir]

@Michelle

And then there is also the example of our rational belief in gravity. We have justification for that belief, because we feel and observe the effects of gravity.

If God can be made rational by one mind, then he can also be made irrational by another. So here is what you are missing. God and gravity cannot be equated on a rational level. While gravity cannot be rationally eliminated, God can.

The only possible philosophical link between God and gravity is that gravity was already there before we believed in it. And it would still be there even if we never believed in it.

So the question is, “Is God only a subjective thought of a rational mind?”

But there is a fundamental error here because God, if real, would have never expected us to merely rationalize his existence. God, if real, would have left traces of his existence.

[Mark10.45 (Mark McGowan)]

@r_speir

But there is a fundamental error here because God, if real, would have never expected us to merely rationalize his existence. God, if real, would have left traces of his existence.

Then you know God? You know why and how God behaves the way that He does? You sound like a true authority over God, with the ability to approve or disapprove of His will. yikes.

Michelle is not missing anything.

@r_speir

gravity was already there before we believed in it. And it would still be there even if we never believed in it.

The same can be said for God, so I don’t understand your point. I can say with complete confidence that God was there before you believed (if you ever do), He will be there whether you believe or not, and He will also be there long after you are gone.

[r_speir]

@Mark10.45

The same can be said for God, so I don’t understand your point

You got my point right. Both gravity and God are realities no matter if we believe in them or not. Michelle however is incorrect in thinking that somehow the existence of gravity infers an existence of God philosophically. And that is just too simplistic. The atheist and agnostic will easily see through her argument and undercut it.

Of course I believe in God and of course I believe he has left innumerable traces of his existence. I was just trying to play by the rules here and argue using logic only. But I do believe that logic can win the argument for God’s existence. For instance, I believe the existence of evil is proof of God. Also, the very existence of the Atheist is proof for God.

[r_speir]

@Mark10.45

Then you know God?

This is the problem posed to Alvin Plantinga and other philosophers:

(1) God is omnipotent (that is, all-powerful).
(2) God is omniscient (that is, all-knowing).
(3) God is perfectly good.
(4) Evil exists.

But J. L. Mackie and H. J. McCloskey are only pretending to know God in the above construction, so in reality it did not need to be answered in the first place. You see, what they left out about the truth of God’s character is in point 3 and 1/2. So here is the more complete character of God:

(1) God is omnipotent (that is, all-powerful).
(2) God is omniscient (that is, all-knowing).
(3) God is perfectly good.
(3.5) God is at perfect peace with his human action and inaction
(4) Evil exists.

[Mark10.45 (Mark McGowan)]

For someone to assume that they know anything about the “character” of God proves that they know nothing about God. But there is really only one point that humans are capable of grasping fully about God…

(1) God IS.

The rest is just conjecture, and will only be known when we meet Him.

Stop with the bait and switch arguments, makes you seem foolish and makes me want to not engage in conversation with you. Just say what you believe or say nothing.

[r_speir]

@Mark10.45

makes you seem foolish and makes me want to not engage in conversation with you

I understand the frustration. I share it. But unfortunately, we are not dealing with simple faith in these people here. They have educated themselves out of a simple belief in God. For us to to tell them “God IS” means nothing to them.

[thoughtful (Valerie (non-scientist))]

@Mark10.45

For someone to assume that they know anything about the “character” of God proves that they know nothing about God.

Defending @r_speir here above he had said God would make himself known and that’s how we could know his character.

This is what I have also been arguing in the Euthyphro comnents thread.

I think you guys actually agree; you are just taking different angles.

@r_speir

Of course I believe in God and of course I believe he has left innumerable traces of his existence. I

[Michelle (Michelle Ols)]

@r_speir

Michelle however is incorrect in thinking that somehow the existence of gravity infers an existence of God philosophically.

I was not using gravity as an argument for the existence of God, but using it to highlight how we accept beliefs using different types of knowledge. The gravity example points to the limits of science: that knowledge comes from different sources, not just science

[Faizal_Ali]

@Michelle

Do you need to know how something works to know that it works, or that it exists?

No. But you need to demonstrate that it works or that it exists.

@Michelle

The gravity example points to the limits of science: that knowledge comes from different sources, not just science

So which “source of knowledge” demonstrates that God exist? And how did it do so?

I’m very sympathetic to the views of Maarten Boudry on this subject:

Boudry on scientism and “ways of knowing” – Why Evolution Is True