Philosophical Vegan Forum

brimstoneSalad wrote: It is justification for holding a belief provisionally, provided that belief doesn't conflict with empirical reality or logic. That's a big caveat though, and new-age beliefs are usually rife with internal contradiction, are usually making claims in clear conflict with well understood empirical reality, and outright deny the validity of all logic.

I always felt that a belief is a conviction, which means you must be convinced to some degree. I think of a belief as an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. Merely because "it makes me feel good" never seemed like an adequate enough reason (provisionally or otherwise). I'd hesitate to grant, new-agers especially, this concession as they then almost always diverge into trying to defend theism on vague deistic grounds. Though you're a cut above the theists I usually encounter, so I'm willing to accept I may be missing something. To put what the mormon said into context, this is what he wrote,

“Like if for some reason believing that God is a giant octopus with a party hat that only speaks in riddles and consumes the souls of the dead then poops them out as jellybeans somehow makes the person who believes that better able to be the person that they want to be in life, then that is justification enough for them to hold it as a personal belief. I would stipulate that the condition to this justification being that it doesn't prevent that person from infringing on the rights of others, but that is my personal belief and doesn't necessarily have to come into play as far as another person's reason to believe something.”

This, sadly, seems to be a commonly held mindset around here. This was essentially an admission that the truth doesn't really matter to him. All that matters is you feel good. This guy also suggested that the benefits of a drunkard sobering up because of a belief in Jesus somehow counteracts the catholic priest sex scandals.

Crocodilia wrote: I always felt that a belief is a conviction, which means you must be convinced to some degree.

You can believe something without conviction.

I believe that I will do well on a test. I have no evidence for or against the belief. Because I believe that, it makes me feel better about the test. This improves my performance, and even if I don't end up doing very well, I do better than I would have otherwise.
I won't continue to believe I did well on the test when I get it back with a C-, but I'll still believe I'll do well on the next test because it's useful, and there's no definitive reason to believe I won't (despite the very real apparent possibility that I'll get another C based on track record).

Crocodilia wrote:I'd hesitate to grant, new-agers especially, this concession as they then almost always diverge into trying to defend theism on vague deistic grounds.

New-agers beliefs are a rejection of logic and fairly conclusive empirical evidence. They are the opposite of useful, and moreover are not possible.

It is apparently possible (given the information I have) that I will make an A on the next test. Therefore, believing this isn't entirely irrational, particularly because it's useful. If I believed I would make a DogSpoon (half dog half spoon) on the next test, which isn't even a possible grade or a real thing, then that would be comparable to what new-agers do.

1. Is it even at least apparently possible, based on the information we have access to, and logic?
2. Is it actually useful, in the grand scheme of things? (denying science is not useful in sum, even if there may be some minor useful effects)
3. Is it really provisional? (non-dogmatic and subject to change upon obtaining new evidence)

“Like if for some reason believing that God is a giant octopus with a party hat that only speaks in riddles and consumes the souls of the dead then poops them out as jellybeans somehow makes the person who believes that better able to be the person that they want to be in life, then that is justification enough for them to hold it as a personal belief. I would stipulate that the condition to this justification being that it doesn't prevent that person from infringing on the rights of others, but that is my personal belief and doesn't necessarily have to come into play as far as another person's reason to believe something.”

Does it pass the three tests above?
It seems to fail at all three.

Sup!