Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site cvl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!cvl!rlh From: rlh@cvl.UUCP (Ralph L. Hartley) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Logic based on different sets of assumptions Message-ID: <106@cvl.UUCP> Date: Thu, 28-Feb-85 10:45:40 EST Article-I.D.: cvl.106 Posted: Thu Feb 28 10:45:40 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 4-Mar-85 06:42:37 EST Organization: Computer Vision Lab, U. of Maryland, College Park Lines: 69 > "Wanting to believe", the desirability of holding certain beliefs as > opposed to others owing to their intrinsic "aesthetic" value rather > than their veracity, becomes a factor in forming belief systems for > certain people. For all people actually. In fact it has to be that way because "veracity" is not really knowable. Remember that Ocams razor (which you use quite a bit) is, in fact, an "aesthetic" principle. It really is just a matter of taste. > Thus my question is: why DO you presume the existence of god as a > given (obviously I and many others simply do not), if not because you > have some vested interest in believing that it is so, what I have > endlessly and perhaps monotonously labelled as WISHFUL THINKING? Endlessly, monotonously, and incorrectly. You totally ignore an important distinction between two lines of thought. (1) I wish that A were true. => I believe A (2) I wish to believe A => I believe A Argument (1) is what is commonly meant by the phrase "wishful thinking". I have to admit that it is not a particularly good line of reasoning. (2) on the other hand is quite valid. Rememember that belief is an action and has consequences that may be completely independent of the truth of the proposition believed in. If someone says "Believing in God (or whatever my religion believes in) makes my life happyer" why do you insist on saying "[those beliefs] are contradicted by rational inquisitive analysis and investigation of the world itself". Maybe so, but so what? > or by individual human needs (arbitrarily?) denied/forbidden/not met > by "god's word". But what about "individual human needs ...not met" by "rational inquisitive analysis and investigation of the world itself". If you don't think there are such needs how do you explain religion? Note that argument (2) cannot be used to convince other people; it does not generalize to (3) I wish to believe A => You should believe A and (4) I wish you to believe A => You should believe A is simple intrusiveness. Note also that the consequences of believing something ARE important even though they have no effect on the truth. This is why different standards of proof are used when judgeing the toxicity of a chemical (there must be a resonable basis for believing it is toxic) and the guilt of a person accused of a crime (there must be no reasonable dought that he is guilty). Another example: You are standing, blind-folded somewhere in the Grand Canyon. You would be wize to believe, until you have evidence to the contrary, that you are standing on a peak with shear cliffs on all sides. Even though such peaks are actualy quite rare. Note that what I consider good reasoning differs form your definition. Also note the the difference does NOT lie in my assuming anything about this god character (I make no such assumptions). Ralph Hartley siesmo!rlgvax!cvl!rlh rlh@cvl