ethics and belief

[suryaz]

From "ethicsBeliefDebste_files/AD0000004932.gif" width=124

 

 

0>Many theologians and philosophers of

religion are actively involved in the Ethics of Belief Debate.

A short collection of essays written by several well-known

academics was complied by the American Academy of Religion

which clarifies why we have reasons for faith and I would like

to share their insights with you.

 

The discussion

arises out of the need for theologians and philosophers to

justify truth claims about their beliefs. If someone holds a

particular religious belief then there should be justifying

reasons which warrant conviction of the mind. Hopefully, the

reasons are free, inward and self-evident and not necessarily

because "Joe told me so" or "this is always what we believed."

 

It was William Clifford who first proposed that we

should proportion the confidence we invest in our beliefs to

the evidence we have. (2) The essays he published caused quite

a stir in his day and encouraged such famous writers as G.K.

Chesterton and C.S. Lewis to respond.

 

When we believe,

do we assent to the truth "God exists" or do we infer (by

experience)? Is what we believe one of the following?

 

 

Presumption

Persuasion

Belief

Conclusion

Conviction or

Certainty (excludes doubt)

 

 

Do our beliefs have:

 

 

Plausibility

Probability

Doubtfulness or

Untrustworthiness

 

 

VAN A. HARVEY clearly states that Christians have a duty and are

bound by their beliefs to seek the truth. If a Christian

belief by definition is the entertaining of propositions

incommensurate with the evidence, the Christian cannot be

regarded as a lover of truth (a moral virtue) (189),

therefore, it is imperative to the Christian to base beliefs

upon truth supported by evidence.

 

 

JOHN NEWMAN

proposes that the certainty of a proposition does not consist

in the certitude of the mind which contemplates it. (84) For

example, not all men discriminate the same way such as

identifying particular authors of a book in the Bible. There

are also no specific criteria for judging gentlemanly

behavior, poetic excellence and heroic action. The belief we

hold about the degree of these rests in our own propriety,

skill, taste, discretion, art, method and temperament.

 

LESLIE STEPHEN agrees on the grounds that there are

other affections which motivate us besides love of the truth;

men of equal ability can hold diametrically opposite

principles which shows certitude alone is no test of objective

truth. (110)

 

 

Does it follow that nobody ought to be

certain? Of course not, but do we:

 

 

1) entertain relevant evidence?

 

2) 2) do our actions based on erroneous belief make

the error manifest? (112)

 

 

Perhaps we can rely on the experience of others - is there a uniformity in nature which

expresses itself as to whether some things are good and others

bad?

 

Maybe the truth of a belief does not rest on the

weight of the evidence, but from whence the weight is derived?

Who told you?(157)

 

In love, it would be the degree of

truth verified by experience or by experts and we cannot reach

certainty because there may be possibilities which we are

unable for want of evidence to exclude. (160)

 

You can't alter the effect of the evidence by your feelings about

it, "I just feel it in my gut" and if you wish to believe in

truth, you would usually act on certain principles.

 

Michael Polanyi's book "Personal Knowledge" calls

these kind of principles a fiduciary framework.

 

All of us hold basic propositions which we assume to be true without

systematically and critically examining our reasons.

Wittgenstein referred to the example of a chess game and his

basic belief about the chess pieces - he assumes that they are

not arbitrarily going to start changing places. He is content

to accept they would not and this has nothing to do with his

stupidity or credulity (Van Harvey, 193) it just makes life

easier.

 

It has been argued that if one cannot prove

the evidence of belief in God, than the effort to do so is

meaningless, for example, Immanuel Kant's "If one cannot, one

ought not" quote.

 

 

We also make the assumption that one

must adhere to norms and procedures in a particular sphere of

study (202) - scientific, analytic - when there may be a host

of other ways to find truth.

 

In what proportion (HUME)

or threshold (CLIFFORD) do we hold the strength of the

evidence? Can truth be assigned degrees?

 

Is there some

other VALUE to the evidence, a "solace and private pleasure of

the believer" which was disparaged by Clifford, yet

nonetheless provides some goods received for holding beliefs

which may or may not be illusory.

 

Maybe the key is not

so much the objective and universal truth, but the nature of

the consequence in believing, or the moral character one is

led to as a result of the belief.

 

If one simply is

looking toward Truth - than you do not want to distort the

issue with values - this is the "Primacy of truth" claim that

it is not the proportions of truth, but truth's intrinsic

importance.

 

Faith causes knowledge itself - this is

what St. Thomas Aquinas and Augustine have shown. Aquinas

believed that our will is biased to the good of the person by

fundamental beliefs which are not typically illusory.

 

What one gains by believing (226) causes the election

voluntarily by the will. There are scientific AND volitional

justifications for belief and you cannot force yourself to

believe "at will" or "unwillingly." Therefore, your will to

believe the truth or falsity of a statement is usually based

upon reason. <

 

>AAR Studies in Religion 41

Edited by Gerald D. McCarthy

Scholars

Press, Atlanta Georgia,

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 08-23-2001).]

[talasiga]

Dear Suryaz,

the BELIEF itself

is an experience.

What is the nature of Experience?

 

[talasiga]

____________

suryaz

posted (without comment)

09-25-2001 6:36AM

at http://www.indiadivine.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000629-3.html

"That which is beyond our power of conception is called acintya, inconceivable. It is useless to argue or speculate about what is inconceivable. If it is truly inconceivable, it is not subject to speculation or experimentation. Our energy is limited, and our sense perception is limited; therefore we must rely on the Vedic conclusions regarding that subject matter which is inconceivable. Knowledge of the superior nature must simply be accepted without argument. How is it possible to argue about something to which we have no access?" (Bhaktivedanta Swami TLC: Introduction)

____________

 

[This message has been edited by talasiga (edited 09-25-2001).]