(March 15, 2018 at 6:59 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: Well, perhaps the axiom question is best left for another day. The question I'd like to ask today is, if we form beliefs initially for non-rational reasons (as a consequence of the feelings of the heart, or whatever), and we then develop rationalizations based upon our initial belief, selective appraisal of the evidence, confirmation bias and so on (methods which undermine the rationality of our conclusions), are then our beliefs not ultimately lacking in rational justification and thereby inherently unreliable?
I guess the answer is that such beliefs would be generally lacking in rational justification, though one could arrive at rational conclusions by sheer luck as opposed to carefully pondering the logic and all that.
Of course, such answer applies only when we form beliefs for non-rational reasons, and I doubt that atheists and theists generally are at the same level when it comes to the priorities of methods and approaches used to attain/form beliefs. From what I've seen, there are a number of atheists who are disturbed by the prospect of there being no ultimate purpose to life and existence, and yet they can't seem to find themselves forming beliefs that would comfort them and relieve them of such worries. I personally hold beliefs that I would love for them to be false (only because the implications of these views disturb the hell out of me), but I just can't see it any other way simply because they come off as logical to me (despite them being discomforting).
Quote:If the head follows the heart in matters of belief, instead of unbiased reason, is our certainty in our conclusions undermined?
Generally speaking, yes. But again, if the premise is true that the head follows the heart in matters of belief.
Quote:I suppose a related question is, given we follow the same psychological limits in acquiring and shoring up our beliefs as theists, are we in any sense justified in believing that our positions are rationally better justified than theirs?
In general, yes, I think so. Just because we share the same psychological limits doesn't mean we deal with those limits in the same way. However, short of psychological studies to assess the differences between atheists and theists when it comes to this subject, I can't be too sure. Personally, I value the use of logic, reasoning, and empirical evidence, regardless of the comfort factor of whatever truth they may lead me to. This is not to say I can't ever be biased, but that when I am made aware of any such biases that may be misguiding me, I like to think that I make an effort to acknowledge them and do my best to keep them "at bay". And correct any misconceptions I may have had due to such biases.
