RE: Is God a rational belief?
May 10, 2011 at 11:51 am
(This post was last modified: May 10, 2011 at 11:57 am by theVOID.)
Welcome to the forums 
Interesting problem, thanks for posting it, I love these sorts of epistemic problems.
Firstly, lets set some minor details aside:
1. His character is not relevant unless he is predisposed to delusion (which downshifts the probability that his experience was real), he could be Prof Jackson or Janitor Jackson it makes no difference - We can assert in a hypothetical that he is not lying about his experience and he is not predisposed to delusion - He has generally normally functioning cognitive facilities and actually had an experience of some nature, be it an externally caused experience or an internally generated phenomenon such as a delusion, drug use etc.
2. Polygraphs are bullshit and being under oath is no more likely to make someone tell the truth, but that aside, If he genuinely had an experience we need not care about either because we will assert that he is telling the truth about experiencing something.
Let's also assume that Jackson believes that the experience took place in objective reality and not entirely within the confines of his mind, he is not questioning the nature of the experience and feels rational in believing that it is true.
The basic outline is as follows:
Jackson(S) Experienced(E1) that he "he was sent 30 years into the future to meet Ookla and receive information about the fate of the earth"(P) and he has some other evidence consistent with these events in the form of a bite mark(E2) and alloy in his eyebrows(E3). - Shortened; S believes that P and S has E1+E2+E3 towards P.
We should also assume that S had no prior knowledge of or has not been raised in a house that believes in time travel, Ookla, Thunar, Alloy Eyebrows or phophesy of the earth's destruction - Notice that it makes it a significantly different situation from the one you are trying to throw analogy to, your belief in Theism.
Your two questions then basically take the form:
1. Is it rational for S to believe that P if S has E1+E2+E3 towards P?
2. Is it rational for ~S to believe that P if S testifies (E4) that P and presents E2+E3 towards P?
Notice that ~S does not have E1 towards P, ~S did not experience P, he has E4 towards P, that being the testimonial (second hand account) of S.
S would only be rational in believing that P if he could determine that E1+E2+E3 are more likely given P than ~P - In other words, is it more likely that E1+E2+E3 were caused by P or by ~P?.
Again, P = S was taken into the future and met Oolak, Thunar and recieved prophesy of the destruction of the earth. ~P = Psychotic episode (and possibly other circumstances, such as evil scientist implanted memories, but they add no value to the analysis).
We have no evidence of Time travel, Oolak, Thunar or Alloy stitched eyebrows having any significance in saving any person from any harmful event.
We have plenty of evidence of psychotic breaks and delusions in which people harm/mutilate themselves, even amongst credible and well respected people.
Therefore, It is not rational for S to believe that P given E1+E2+E3 because it is much more likely that it was caused by ~P.
It is even less rational for ~S to believe that P given E2+E3+E4 because E1 (direct experience) is a higher standard of evidence than E4.
If S is a rational person he would believe that his experience is more likely given that ~P.
Sorry if you aren't familiar with the symbols, I use them because they help me dissolve problems and see them more clearly. If you need anything clarified feel free to ask.
Not quite, He has a bite mark(E2) and alloy in his eyebrows(E3) that were part of his experience that P.
No it wouldn't, His experience is much more likely given ~P.
Interesting problem, thanks for posting it, I love these sorts of epistemic problems.Firstly, lets set some minor details aside:
1. His character is not relevant unless he is predisposed to delusion (which downshifts the probability that his experience was real), he could be Prof Jackson or Janitor Jackson it makes no difference - We can assert in a hypothetical that he is not lying about his experience and he is not predisposed to delusion - He has generally normally functioning cognitive facilities and actually had an experience of some nature, be it an externally caused experience or an internally generated phenomenon such as a delusion, drug use etc.
2. Polygraphs are bullshit and being under oath is no more likely to make someone tell the truth, but that aside, If he genuinely had an experience we need not care about either because we will assert that he is telling the truth about experiencing something.
Let's also assume that Jackson believes that the experience took place in objective reality and not entirely within the confines of his mind, he is not questioning the nature of the experience and feels rational in believing that it is true.
The basic outline is as follows:
Jackson(S) Experienced(E1) that he "he was sent 30 years into the future to meet Ookla and receive information about the fate of the earth"(P) and he has some other evidence consistent with these events in the form of a bite mark(E2) and alloy in his eyebrows(E3). - Shortened; S believes that P and S has E1+E2+E3 towards P.
We should also assume that S had no prior knowledge of or has not been raised in a house that believes in time travel, Ookla, Thunar, Alloy Eyebrows or phophesy of the earth's destruction - Notice that it makes it a significantly different situation from the one you are trying to throw analogy to, your belief in Theism.
Your two questions then basically take the form:
1. Is it rational for S to believe that P if S has E1+E2+E3 towards P?
2. Is it rational for ~S to believe that P if S testifies (E4) that P and presents E2+E3 towards P?
Notice that ~S does not have E1 towards P, ~S did not experience P, he has E4 towards P, that being the testimonial (second hand account) of S.
S would only be rational in believing that P if he could determine that E1+E2+E3 are more likely given P than ~P - In other words, is it more likely that E1+E2+E3 were caused by P or by ~P?.
Again, P = S was taken into the future and met Oolak, Thunar and recieved prophesy of the destruction of the earth. ~P = Psychotic episode (and possibly other circumstances, such as evil scientist implanted memories, but they add no value to the analysis).
We have no evidence of Time travel, Oolak, Thunar or Alloy stitched eyebrows having any significance in saving any person from any harmful event.
We have plenty of evidence of psychotic breaks and delusions in which people harm/mutilate themselves, even amongst credible and well respected people.
Therefore, It is not rational for S to believe that P given E1+E2+E3 because it is much more likely that it was caused by ~P.
It is even less rational for ~S to believe that P given E2+E3+E4 because E1 (direct experience) is a higher standard of evidence than E4.
If S is a rational person he would believe that his experience is more likely given that ~P.
Sorry if you aren't familiar with the symbols, I use them because they help me dissolve problems and see them more clearly. If you need anything clarified feel free to ask.
(May 10, 2011 at 11:43 am)tavarish Wrote: The answer is no. If he can't bring back anything verifiable (not just his subjective experiences), then there's no rational reason to believe him.
Not quite, He has a bite mark(E2) and alloy in his eyebrows(E3) that were part of his experience that P.
(May 10, 2011 at 11:08 am)FaithNoMore Wrote: For him it would be considered rational to believe. After all, all we can determine about the cosmos is based on what we perceive. For others to believe in another man's delusions is cerainly not rational.
No it wouldn't, His experience is much more likely given ~P.
.
