What are the Benefits of Theism?

[tillingborn]

Here's my theory: In pop terms you are...

Without even the necessity of a theory at all, this attempt at argument here is ad hominem and also wrong.

And here's the proof of that

tillingborn wrote: ↑Sat Jan 30, 2021 12:42 am
"If a belief system holds up to scrutiny, well and good, but most people pragmatically adopt the general philosophy of the crowd they happen to belong to. There are thousands of successful belief systems, insofar as they are conducive to human well-being, many of which claim to be the truth. People who make a choice do so for aesthetic reasons, truth has little to do with it.

That was on page 3. This is now page 26 and a fair bit of the intervening 23 pages have involved me pointing out that my argument is that it is only when all evidence and logic is exhausted that people are compelled to make aesthetic choices. It is simply a fact that there are thousands of successful belief systems that are underdetermined. That is true even if you limit belief systems to include only those that call themselves Christian.
For context, here is the post you quote from in full:

Every belief has its benefits. But these are merely pragmatic incentives for adhering to received belief systems whether or not the systems are true. But the only real reason to believe something is because it's true. The rest is just...well...benefits.

One of the key maxims of philosophy is that 'the unexamined life is not worth living'. The point is precisely not to adhere to received belief systems, but to challenge them. If a belief system holds up to scrutiny, well and good, but most people pragmatically adopt the general philosophy of the crowd they happen to belong to. There are thousands of successful belief systems, insofar as they are conducive to human well-being, many of which claim to be the truth. People who make a choice do so for aesthetic reasons, truth has little to do with it.

You make your aesthetic opinion clear when you say: "But the only real reason to believe something is because it's true." The problem is that the whole reason why the field of Christian Apologetics exists is that nobody can prove that the claims of Christianity are true. But you like the idea, so you believe it.

Comma splice, by the way.

That too is an aesthetic choice.

[Skepdick]

It is simply a fact that there are thousands of successful belief systems that are underdetermined.

Surely that very sentence implies some criteria for "success" over and above evidential determinacy?

Or are you going to default to insisting that any and all criteria for success are "aesthetic"

Effectively "asthetics" is the all-encompassing apologetic for the explanatory/predictive failure of your thesis...

[Immanuel Can]

Here's my theory: In pop terms you are...

Without even the necessity of a theory at all, this attempt at argument here is ad hominem and also wrong.

And here's the proof of that

tillingborn wrote: ↑Sat Jan 30, 2021 12:42 am
"If a belief system holds up to scrutiny, well and good, but most people pragmatically adopt the general philosophy of the crowd they happen to belong to. There are thousands of successful belief systems, insofar as they are conducive to human well-being, many of which claim to be the truth. People who make a choice do so for aesthetic reasons, truth has little to do with it.

That was on page 3.

Ah. So you've now changed your mind? People do not "make [such a] choice for aesthetic reasons"?

...my argument is that it is only when all evidence and logic is exhausted that people are compelled to make aesthetic choices.

So "aesthetics" has moved, in your argument, from place 1 to place 8 or 9, now? I don't think there's any more an argument to be made, then; because nobody's going to deny that when much better ways of making a decision have already been "exhausted," that aesthetics could come into play. That's an argument without another side.

It is simply a fact that there are thousands of successful belief systems that are underdetermined.

Maybe. I don't know how you think you know that. You don't have special access to people's minds, so far as I know.

You make your aesthetic opinion clear when you say: "But the only real reason to believe something is because it's true."

That's highly ironic: so your belief is that to contradict you is to prove you're right? Sorry, that's just too much to accept. To contradict is to contradict your hypothesis, not to support it.

The problem is that the whole reason why the field of Christian Apologetics exists is that nobody can prove that the claims of Christianity are true. But you like the idea, so you believe it.

Sorry; you just don't know that. I'm certain you have absolutely no windows into why I believe what I believe, judging by your own words earlier. And as for the field of apologetics generally, its existence only suggests that some people don't really know what the field of apologetics contains...again, an entirely unsurprising discovery. Of course some folks are uninformed. But just as people's ignorance of the answer to 2+2 does not suggest there's no 4, people's ignorance of the best arguments does not indicate there are no answers. It only indicates that at least some people are ignorant of the data.

Comma splice, by the way.

That too is an aesthetic choice.

Well, no, it's a grammatical rule. It's called Standard English. But we can let that be. It was merely trivial of me even to point it out.

[tillingborn]

It is simply a fact that there are thousands of successful belief systems that are underdetermined.

Surely that very sentence implies some criteria for "success" over and above evidential determinacy?

Or are you going to default to insisting that any and all criteria for success are "aesthetic"

I agree and have done for the previous 24 pages. You have highlighted this point before and somewhere in the pit is me conceding that yes, once every consideration except aesthetic preference is eliminated, what's left is aesthetic preference.

Effectively "asthetics" is the all-encompassing apologetic for the explanatory/predictive failure of your thesis...

Pointing out that people believe things they cannot prove is a demonstrable fact, rather than a thesis. That you cannot persuade some people to believe things they don't want to, even if they are true, is a testable hypothesis; as Immanuel Can so helpfully illustrates.

[Skepdick]

I agree and have done for the previous 24 pages. You have highlighted this point before and somewhere in the pit is me conceding that yes, once every consideration except aesthetic preference is eliminated, what's left is aesthetic preference.

Right. And you grouping everything non-demonstrable as "aesthetics" is known as the McNamara fallacy.

Pointing out that people believe things they cannot prove is a demonstrable fact, rather than a thesis. That you cannot persuade some people to believe things they don't want to, even if they are true, is a testable hypothesis; as Immanuel Can so helpfully illustrates.

Well yes. You are a perfect example of this too

You see things at the resolution of "aesthetics". Either a theory is aesthetic or it isn't. The fidelity of your yardstick is 1 bit - 1 distinction.

Even if I were to give you a new yardstick - a new way to quantify different theories. A yardstick by which theory A clearly and quantitatively better than theory B you wouldn't care. You don't want a 2 bit/2 distinction fidelity. You want 1 bit fidelity. You don't want nuance.

In the language of statistics you are simply less sensitive than me.

[tillingborn]

Ah. So you've now changed your mind? People do not "make [such a] choice for aesthetic reasons"?

...my argument is that it is only when all evidence and logic is exhausted that people are compelled to make aesthetic choices.

No. It says in the quote what my argument is. Given two theories that explain the same data equally well, anyone who makes a choice is doing so for aesthetic purposes.

So "aesthetics" has moved, in your argument, from place 1 to place 8 or 9, now?

People can make aesthetic choices at any point in their decision making. Some piece of supporting evidence or logic might appeal enough for them to dismiss counter arguments and counterfactuals.

I don't think there's any more an argument to be made, then; because nobody's going to deny that when much better ways of making a decision have already been "exhausted," that aesthetics could come into play. That's an argument without another side.

Great. So we agree.

[Skepdick]

No. It says in the quote what my argument is. Given two theories that explain the same data equally well, anyone who makes a choice is doing so for aesthetic purposes.

Are you aware of the fact that explanatory power and predictive power are different properties of theories?

e.g it's possible to have a theory which explains, but doesn't predict and it's possible to have a theory which predicts, but does not explain;
And it's possible to have two theories of the same explanatory power but different predictive power.

This paper asks the question To explain or to predict?

People can make aesthetic choices at any point in their decision making. Some piece of supporting evidence or logic might appeal enough for them to dismiss counter arguments and counterfactuals.

Is it still an "aesthetic" choice if I can measure something that you can't?

[Immanuel Can]

Given two theories that explain the same data equally well, anyone who makes a choice is doing so for aesthetic purposes.

Congratulations. You've discovered that "given" there's no other difference that matters, people will opt for aesthetics. You'll soon discover that "given that there's no other women," men will marry any woman at all, and "given that there's no other food," people will eat a locust or a cactus.

I shall alert the Nobel committee immediately.

[tillingborn]

Is it still an "aesthetic" choice if I can measure something that you can't?

There are some things which we haven't yet managed to measure. What is beauty? What is good? Do we have free will? What happens after we die? Is the world a hologram? If you can measure any of those, I will be happy to consider your data.

[tillingborn]

Given two theories that explain the same data equally well, anyone who makes a choice is doing so for aesthetic purposes.

Congratulations. You've discovered that "given" there's no other difference that matters, people will opt for aesthetics. You'll soon discover that "given that there's no other women," men will marry any woman at all, and "given that there's no other food," people will eat a locust or a cactus.

There are a number of possible reasons why you misrepresent what I say. It might be that you are too stupid to accurately process what I have written. I could be because you are so blinded with hatred that making a fool of yourself over 24 pages is worth it. You are quite right that I do not have access to your motives, I just have to make something of the evidence you provide.

I shall alert the Nobel committee immediately.

I'm sure they get enough cranks already.

[Immanuel Can]

You are quite right that I do not have access to your motives...

Funny, then, that you've felt so free to speculate and pronounce on them.

[tillingborn]

You are quite right that I do not have access to your motives...

Funny, then, that you've felt so free to speculate and pronounce on them.

That is what people do. Evidence-theory-test.

[Immanuel Can]

You are quite right that I do not have access to your motives...

Funny, then, that you've felt so free to speculate and pronounce on them.

That is what people do. Evidence-theory-test.

Heh.

Well, enjoy your theory. I trust you'll find it aesthetically satisfying.

[tillingborn]

Well, enjoy your theory. I trust you'll find it aesthetically satisfying.

Thank you. Actually, I'm sticking with the one that is best supported by the evidence.

[Skepdick]

There are some things which we haven't yet managed to measure. What is beauty? What is good? Do we have free will? What happens after we die? Is the world a hologram? If you can measure any of those, I will be happy to consider your data.

That entirely depends on what you think "measurement" is and isn't...

That we haven't agreed on a measurement doesn't mean that it can't be measured.

https://www.amazon.com/How-Measure-Anyt ... B00INUYS2U

If you want to be pedantic, the answer to any yes/no question is a measurement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit