Could you willfully believe something if there was a significant reward in it?

[bobcat]

It can be a thought provoking topic.
Consider the following:
You and I are on an island with no escape.
You discover that I have found the only food on the island, but I tell you it is poison.
I may be telling you that because I want to keep it for myself. or it could be true.
Now, you could choose not to eat it, and eventually die, but that would be certain death.
At least if you eat it, you stand a better chance.
You could wait and see if I eat it, but perhaps I will wait and see if I can outlast you, and maybe we will both die from starvation.
Should you eat it?

 

[Knight]

You and I are on an island with no escape.
You discover that I have found the only food on the island, but I tell you it is poison.
You could wait and see if I eat it, but perhaps I will wait and see if I can outlast you, and maybe we will both die from starvation.
Should you eat it?

Are we to believe other than the food you found there is no other food source.
Easy answer Share the food.
No escape means at some point you will die. Death is death the how of it makes no difference.

 

[bobcat]

That sort of belief is based on logical thinking, bobcat. There is a degree of tangible evidence to come to this conclusion. So many of us have studied at one point or another probables in either math or science, or both. Philosophy and psychiatry along with religion asks us to accept certain theories as fact. I prefer search out my own findings from as many sources as possible.

Well, here is another twist. Elon Musk thinks that we are living in a simulated universe for a number of reasons, and that idea may sound absolutely ludicrous, but if we were living in that simulation, we would never become aware of it. It would seem just as real to us as anything could. Here's the kicker, Neil deGrasse Tyson, finds it hard to argue against that hypothesis. Here's the clip.

 

[bobcat]

Are we to believe other than the food you found there is no other food source.
Easy answer Share the food.
No escape means at some point you will die. Death is death the how of it makes no difference.

True, but we would both die sooner. Perhaps by living a couple days longer for one person, the situation could change.
I would share the food anyway, but that's just me. Desperate people do desperate things.
Think of past movies about people on a life raft who were at deaths door, how survival instincts can take over, and things get crazy.
Even the Donner Party, I'm sure were not cannibals, and were thoroughly convinced it was wrong, but in time, changed that thinking.

 

[Knight]

True, but we would both die sooner. Perhaps by living a couple days longer for one person, the situation could change.

Your example so you get to propose a change that would happen on an island with no additional food & no escape.

 

[bobcat]

Your example so you get to propose a change that would happen on an island with no additional food & no escape.

Sorry. I meant no escape that you could instigate. Any rescue would just be a hopeful outcome.

 

[JustDave]

I have also learned that there is benefit to believing that there is some connection with this unknown cosmic energy (serenity, lack of worry, and even a feeling of tremendous exhilaration).

I don't doubt you feel exhilaration in the cosmos, as do I. And I believe it is an emotional benefit to some.

So, given a 50% chance of being correct, I chose to believe in it [the supernatural]. Since that time, I have looked at nature in a whole new light, and experienced many joyful moments communing with what I believe to be there.

Pascal's Wager has been offered many times in debate. Word had it that he scribbled it on a napkin, while at a dinner. Now this guy was smart. No doubt about it. But his wager was just a logical brain fart, like all of us have from time to time. It's too bad that's the main thing Pascal is remembered for, because he did make advancements to technology of his time. I don't know if he actually believed his dinner thought was possible or it was just a product of his belief.

If he did actually believe it, I don't see anything willful in that belief, but the bottom line is there is no evidence for such a belief. That it makes some people feel good is not evidence, and it doesn't support that willful belief is possible.

I do not process evidence on the basis of what makes me feel good.

Many may think that makes no sense without any tangible evidence, but they are choosing to believe that it's not there, also without any tangible evidence. They may be just as incorrect as I may be, and it may well be that we never find out, but meanwhile, I am enjoying something that is rewarding to me, so I have chosen it.

I don't choose to believe something is not there for lack of evidence. The only intellectually honest response to that situation is not knowing. There is nothing wrong with not knowing in the absence of credible evidence. Logic seldom shows that lack of evidence means a thing is not true. It's only tests whether claims are valid. It's not about feeling good or feeling bad.

I don't choose my beliefs from a buffet, and those beliefs that I have, are not set in stone, but I cannot will a belief. I can will a thought. I can will a behavior, but those three things are all very separate concepts.

I was worried that the opening post was a cloaked effort to begin a discussion on religion. I try to avoid such discussions. By the way, I'm happy your belief satisfies you, and you will no doubt get support from others.

 

[Avon]

Yes, like meeting a multi-millionairess and believing they are in love with them. No problem.

 

[bobcat]

I don't doubt you feel exhilaration in the cosmos, as do I. And I believe it is an emotional benefit to some.


Pascal's Wager has been offered many times in debate. Word had it that he scribbled it on a napkin, while at a dinner. Now this guy was smart. No doubt about it. But his wager was just a logical brain fart, like all of us have from time to time. It's too bad that's the main thing Pascal is remembered for, because he did make advancements to technology of his time. I don't know if he actually believed his dinner thought was possible or it was just a product of his belief.

If he did actually believe it, I don't see anything willful in that belief, but the bottom line is there is no evidence for such a belief. That it makes some people feel good is not evidence, and it doesn't support that willful belief is possible.

I do not process evidence on the basis of what makes me feel good.

I don't choose to believe something is not there for lack of evidence. The only intellectually honest response to that situation is not knowing. There is nothing wrong with not knowing in the absence of credible evidence. Logic seldom shows that lack of evidence means a thing is not true. It's only tests whether claims are valid. It's not about feeling good or feeling bad.

I don't choose my beliefs from a buffet, and those beliefs that I have, are not set in stone, but I cannot will a belief. I can will a thought. I can will a behavior, but those three things are all very separate concepts.

I was worried that the opening post was a cloaked effort to begin a discussion on religion. I try to avoid such discussions. By the way, I'm happy your belief satisfies you, and you will no doubt get support from others.

No, the discussion here was never intended to be about religion, but even when I posted it, I expected some would take it there, and that's fine. However, poking at that campfire a bit, here is another thought.
A person goes to church along with other believers, and on entering the church, with

I don't doubt you feel exhilaration in the cosmos, as do I. And I believe it is an emotional benefit to some.


Pascal's Wager has been offered many times in debate. Word had it that he scribbled it on a napkin, while at a dinner. Now this guy was smart. No doubt about it. But his wager was just a logical brain fart, like all of us have from time to time. It's too bad that's the main thing Pascal is remembered for, because he did make advancements to technology of his time. I don't know if he actually believed his dinner thought was possible or it was just a product of his belief.

If he did actually believe it, I don't see anything willful in that belief, but the bottom line is there is no evidence for such a belief. That it makes some people feel good is not evidence, and it doesn't support that willful belief is possible.

I do not process evidence on the basis of what makes me feel good.

I don't choose to believe something is not there for lack of evidence. The only intellectually honest response to that situation is not knowing. There is nothing wrong with not knowing in the absence of credible evidence. Logic seldom shows that lack of evidence means a thing is not true. It's only tests whether claims are valid. It's not about feeling good or feeling bad.

I don't choose my beliefs from a buffet, and those beliefs that I have, are not set in stone, but I cannot will a belief. I can will a thought. I can will a behavior, but those three things are all very separate concepts.

I was worried that the opening post was a cloaked effort to begin a discussion on religion. I try to avoid such discussions. By the way, I'm happy your belief satisfies you, and you will no doubt get support from others.

No, the OP wasn't intended to be about religion, although when posting it, I was fully aware some would take it there, and that's fine, because the same circumstances could apply.
I think a choice can be deliberate (Assuming one was to accept the concept that we have free will), but the belief itself is not. It requires sufficient convincing because it is an interpretation of reality. However, given that you have no evidence whereby you can interpret that reality, it is more like a best guess situation. That is where the logic comes into play, but even that can lead to more unanswered questions.
How did the universe appear from nothing? How does life come from atoms that aren't alive individually? How does consciousness arise, or is it an illusion? Where does organization come from when there should be chaos?

Anyway, with no answers, one can choose one way or the other, take it out for a spin, and see if it passes the road test of what you might expect. I did, and I am happy with the results.

 

[hearlady]

Even when I was old enough to know Santa wasn't real, it paid to keep the faith so I'd get the extra "Santa Gift" which was usually a decent get.

 

[JustDave]

I think a choice can be deliberate (Assuming one was to accept the concept that we have free will), but the belief itself is not.

Right, as far as I can tell free will applies only to actions and behavior, not to beliefs.

I find it odd that the religious make such a big deal out of having free will, when the omniscience of a higher power supports predestination. At the same time, I find it odd that among atheists there appears to be a fairly strong agreement that free will does not exist, although that is not universal. I think this must be a semantic issue. I just don't understand either point of view or why the debate is even relevant.

This doesn't relate to our discussion, but it's just an issue that perplexes me. Neither the religious or the non religious can offer convincing support for either of their views on free will. They appear to be beliefs at best.

I think I have free will, because it feels like I make decisions on a daily basis. If it's just an illusion, so what? I'd rather talk about quantum mechanics, where there's a small chance ferreting out a clearer understanding of physics. But talking about religion? I've done that most of my life, been baptized, confirmed, indoctrinated, and read the Bible, but never found comfort or joy in any of it, and most of all, found no convincing evidence.

But you seem to be a bright guy. I hope we can find other things to talk about.

 

[bobcat]

Right, as far as I can tell free will applies only to actions and behavior, not to beliefs.

I find it odd that the religious make such a big deal out of having free will, when the omniscience of a higher power supports predestination. At the same time, I find it odd that among atheists there appears to be a fairly strong agreement that free will does not exist, although that is not universal. I think this must be a semantic issue. I just don't understand either point of view or why the debate is even relevant.

This doesn't relate to our discussion, but it's just an issue that perplexes me. Neither the religious or the non religious can offer convincing support for either of their views on free will. They appear to be beliefs at best.

I think I have free will, because it feels like I make decisions on a daily basis. If it's just an illusion, so what? I'd rather talk about quantum mechanics, where there's a small chance ferreting out a clearer understanding of physics. But talking about religion? I've done that most of my life, been baptized, confirmed, indoctrinated, and read the Bible, but never found comfort or joy in any of it, and most of all, found no convincing evidence.

But you seem to be a bright guy. I hope we can find other things to talk about.

Thank you for that, and as always, stimulating and intelligent views from you. It's always fun to tunnel into deep subjects.

 

[davey]

iS IT ? - find tunnels very very frightening ; no evidence of where they are going how bigger or smaller they will get and will the oxygen run out in the end? nah tunnelling is for the intrepid and the demented!