Is Unbelief Possible?

[Alex K]

Beliefs can be true and false. The message you are looking at exists and if you believe it you're right.
If I say that I own a spaceship and you believe it that belief is false.

Yea! Exactly, I guess that's the direction of the idea I'm looking for. If belief is unreliable, why believe in anything at all? Why not choose to surpress your belief or suspend it?

In some instances, we cannot quite suspend belief completely if we want to act, but I think it makes sense to suspend belief in some instances. For example, if I roll a die, I do not have any preconceived ideas how many eyes it's going to be, I seriously suspend any belief in possible results. Now that's the extreme case because we know all outcomes are roughly equally likely, but it's also still kinda true for other things in real life. It's ok to say "I don't know".

There was a related discussion on a different thread where discipulus wantet to school us silly atheists and tell us that we are all really faith based, because we have to have faith in rationality and the scientific principle, which cannot be "proven" to be reliable using science, because if science is not reliable, it could give you a false positive on itself... well you get the idea.

My reply (slightly edited) was thusly:

You meant to say: hey, but you use the scientific method to find whether the scientific method is reliable (aha!). And I say: in a sense that is correct, for what I can check is self-consistency of its findings. It cannot in principle be possible to prove it correct in any way because there is the possibility of solipsism. However, the scientific method is not an artificial construct entirely separate from our everyday experience, it is a slight formalization of the mode of operation in which you live your life. To deny it on grounds of our inability to prove its validity from first principles therefore has the profound consequence of sliding into solipsism. The hypothesis "the scientific method is unreliable" is unfalsifiable, but living your life accepting it means denying the reality of your life. You can do it, but there is no reason to do it. Now I understand that you can't actually want to accept it (the hypothesis of unreliability), because you are arguing with us. Thus, you want not only to reject it, given that we reject it as well, you call this move faith-based. In a philosophical piggy back, you then declare that 1. we are no better than the theists, 2. because we live faith based lifes. The latter is true, but almost trivially so, as we are forced to make working assumptions in order to act (the point of your schtick is calling those faith)- the former is not, for you either make a huge unnecessary additional assumption for which there is no evidence in the sense of the scientific method which you already accept, or you want to take theism as the alternative, in which case you deny all of reality and this conversation does not take place.

Your next stop from here is presuppositionalism, have fun

Emphasis mine. duh.