tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post4574003325068704049..comments2023-09-24T07:53:50.826-05:00Comments on The Atheist Experience™: Can beliefs be inconsistent?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-75987737893002539402009-10-27T15:12:48.953-05:002009-10-27T15:12:48.953-05:00Kazim:
OK, the liar paradox was perhaps not the b...Kazim:<br /><br />OK, the liar paradox was perhaps not the best example, but *inconsistency* of formal systems in general means that there is a statement P such that both P and 'not P' are provable by the axioms of the system. Perhaps the Berry paradox is a better example of something that is both true and not true at the same time.<br /><br />In any case, I see what you are saying with the misunderstanding of logic that people profess.stenlishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09636450792564014547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-87029878802934335172009-10-27T14:33:32.479-05:002009-10-27T14:33:32.479-05:00Stenlis,
Inconsistent formal systems contain para...Stenlis,<br /><br /><i>Inconsistent formal systems contain paradoxes - like the famous 'This statement is false'. You can say that in the formal system of aristotelean logic the statement can be both proved true and false at the same time.</i><br /><br />Actually, it's the opposite. A paradoxical statement like the one above is considered by logicians to be neither true nor false.<br /><br /><i>But can a human mind grasp that concept of both true and not-true? Or is it rather the case that the human mind merely cannot decide whether the statement is true or not?</i><br /><br />I think you are mixing up the default position, which is simply complete apathy with regard to the truth or falsehood of a given statement. It takes <i>work</i> to ferret out a contradiction in your beliefs. Many people, on encountering the claim "This statement is false," might just say "Whatever" and not think through the implications. That's the sort of person that I think can easily accept contradictory claims without a problem.<br /><br />Many who have contributed to this thread would probably say that this doesn't count, because those people haven't really grasped the contradiction and so do not really "believe" it. But I think that's the point -- it's a <i>common</i> occurrence to accept contradictory claims precisely because it's uncommon to think hard about the logic involved. The only way to weed out contradictions is to really work hard at the logical process that isolates the contradiction, or else make the contradiction so simple and obvious that it takes no work. But I hardly think this means that one person can't accept a contradiction which is readily apparent to another person. It happens all the time.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05324968314168283095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-80917655977291537862009-10-27T09:52:15.550-05:002009-10-27T09:52:15.550-05:00Kazim:
Great, thought-provoking post!
I just got ...Kazim:<br /><br />Great, thought-provoking post!<br />I just got one question - aren't you mixing properties of formal systems and human belief systems too readily? <br /><br />Inconsistent formal systems contain paradoxes - like the famous 'This statement is false'. You can say that in the formal system of aristotelean logic the statement can be both proved true and false at the same time. But can a human mind grasp that concept of both true and not-true? Or is it rather the case that the human mind merely cannot decide whether the statement is true or not?<br /><br />In my case, no matter what I do, I cannot wrap my mind around such paradoxes and honestly believe they are true and false at the same time. And I suspect no human mind can do that. <br /><br />In a similar fashion if you look at Escher's Convex and Concave - you know that the objects in the pictures can be interpreted in two different ways and you can make your mind see them convex or you can make your mind see them concave, but you cannot make your mind see both at the same time.stenlishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09636450792564014547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-13700759828214868562009-10-26T00:03:46.304-05:002009-10-26T00:03:46.304-05:00Andrew Louis:
My example with Thor is exactly th...Andrew Louis: <br /><br />My example with Thor is exactly the same thing as Russels example with someone believing that the bible is moral but thinking that genocide is immoral. The person saying that the bible is moral simply doesn't know or understand what the bible says about genocide.<br /><br /><br />The point is that any contradiction that someone believes can only be pointed out by someone else who identifies the beliefs as a contradiction. I claim that noone believes two contradicting things if they know that it's contradicting.Ingemarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17941141213081949119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-27589919053851290102009-10-25T08:21:20.251-05:002009-10-25T08:21:20.251-05:00Ingemar,
Your example simply won’t do – you are es...Ingemar,<br />Your example simply won’t do – you are essentially mistaking the finger for the moon.<br /><br />If your fictitious person thinks Thor exists, but doesn’t think Gods exist, and by your admission doesn’t think Thor is a God, then he hasn’t contradicted himself. You interpreting him the way you are (as being wrong about Thor) drains your case that you are interpreting him correctly. For all you know Thor is his neighbor, of some new video game, etc. etc. The bottom line is (and you’ve demonstrated it) the person doesn’t think Thor is a God, and as such there is no contradiction.Andrew Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18204999524677028033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-7344936600627649532009-10-25T05:37:05.688-05:002009-10-25T05:37:05.688-05:00I also have to agree that it is only possible to h...I also have to agree that it is only possible to have contradictory beliefs when the person is unaware of the contradiction. <br /><br />The way I see it is that any time two beliefs can be expressed as the same proposition P1 being both true and false then there is no room to hide the contradiction.<br /><br />For example:<br /><br />P1 "Thor exists". I claim that it's impossible to believe that this statement is both true and false.<br /><br />However if we look at two other statements:<br /><br />P1 "Thor exists" P2 and "No gods exist". Now it's possible to believe that both P1 is true and P2 is true because since we are talking about two diffrent statements, it's possible that the contradiction between the two statements is not clearly seen. (For example if one doesn't know that Thor is a god).Ingemarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17941141213081949119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-68843384722555793512009-10-24T19:36:16.518-05:002009-10-24T19:36:16.518-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Andrew Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18354390243251659942noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-75583133723061631412009-10-24T19:32:59.560-05:002009-10-24T19:32:59.560-05:00I think you guys have really misrepresented Gregor...I think you guys have really misrepresented Gregory’s position, and/or, perhaps it’s better put that you’re interpretation of him was rather unforgiving, and I would suggest, incorrect….. Gregg’s position is that he is both a Theist and an Atheist, at the same time.<br /><br />From his opening remarks it seems quite evident that what Greg rejects in God (that makes him call himself an atheist) is God in the sense of a Platonic conception (Realism or Materialism is you will. i.e. he rejects the same God you do). The notion that Greg accepts is a Pragmatic conception, perhaps God as metaphor (that requires significant unpacking of course – think, Nietzsche’s notion of truth as a mobile army of metaphors).<br /><br />You guys on the show seem to have definite Materialist/Realist leanings (and you’re skilled in that rhetoric) so of course you’re going to do a good job pulling Greg into your world, forcing him to argue from the foundations of your assumptions. I’d be willing to bet Greg would feel quite comfortable in the hands of say, a William James or Richard Rorty.<br /><br />Anyway, bottom line is I think Greg was being quite honest, but could simply not articulate himself properly and find his way out of Platonist assumptions. In this way, I don’t think he was being in the least bit inconsistent, merely inarticulate.Andrew Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18204999524677028033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-73136326610607749442009-10-24T19:28:19.391-05:002009-10-24T19:28:19.391-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Andrew Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18354390243251659942noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-7980299896316293672009-10-24T11:03:03.814-05:002009-10-24T11:03:03.814-05:00I think you can hold two opposing positions at onc...I think you can hold two opposing positions at once, but only if you're batshit insane. I agree with Matt here. If you know that you are wrong, and don't care, you are a moron!Doommakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18045717424769644529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-1117424234316411292009-10-23T03:41:42.046-05:002009-10-23T03:41:42.046-05:00I'm still with Matt. You can have two inconsis...I'm still with Matt. You can have two inconsistent beliefs. But you can't have a belief and at the same time not have it. These are two different things.Djudgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05234439084220878348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-10893866817045882252009-10-23T02:49:07.704-05:002009-10-23T02:49:07.704-05:00it does not follow that one cannot hold contradict...<b>it does not follow that one cannot hold contradictory beliefs, and in fact, I think that they do all the time.</b><br /><br />This seems (to me) to be an issue of semantics. The objection to contradictory beliefs is not that one can't have them. It's that in doing so, the person doesn't understand the nature of his/her belief.<br /><br />It's similar to what you said later in your post. But I will side with those who claim that the person can't actually believe what he/she is claiming.<br /><br />Personally, I moved away from religion once I found out that many believers uphold contradictory ideas. Few are honest enough to admit that they don't care about the contradictions, and even fewer understand the implications of what they claim.Whatevermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14458601080799278850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-29959875070161687102009-10-22T17:15:01.632-05:002009-10-22T17:15:01.632-05:00I don't think it's an apples and oranges t...I don't think it's an apples and oranges thing. When I say "contradiction" I mean it in the literal, conventional sense of the word. As I say before, I feel like we can agree that people can and do believe contradictory information. I think the only difference being expressed here is in terms of how starkly drawn the contradiction has to be before a non-crazy person will sit up and say "Hey, wait a minute..."<br /><br />Unfortunately, this will have to be my last contribution to this discussion for the week, as I'm headed home, after which I'll be catching a flight in the morning and I have no laptop to bring with me. (Yet. In point of fact I just ordered one and it should be available shortly after I return. I'm quite excited about it.)<br /><br />Bye!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05324968314168283095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-2457062314151433072009-10-22T14:48:03.473-05:002009-10-22T14:48:03.473-05:00Um, is it just me or is there a tiny bit of an &qu...Um, is it just me or is there a tiny bit of an "apples and oranges" thing going on here?. Mr. Dillahunty seems to be using "contradiction" to mean something like "no sane or honest person can believe god is perfectly moral AND god is NOT perfectly moral at the same time." Mr. Glasser(Kazim) on the other hand appears to mean something like "it's possible to believe a contradiction like: god is perfectly moral AND the Bible is inerrant."<br /><br />The latter sounds like a believer holding two contradicting beliefs but rationalising the contradiction(if the Bible is inerrant, how can you say the thing god did are moral?) by making excuses and ad hoc explanations, which is possible and in fact, happens all the time. The former sounds more like someone stating that A = A and A = -A at the same time, which is impossible('cause things are what they are; they're not what they're not; and it's not neither or both).<br /><br />I dunno... just throwing stuff out there. Don't pay too much attention to me. :PAdraelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05973486036413829486noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-21657488755612991682009-10-22T13:12:39.754-05:002009-10-22T13:12:39.754-05:00I think you are treating this as a qualitative dif...I think you are treating this as a qualitative difference when it fact it is a quantitative one. The key is in your final phrasing, which is poorly defined: "or any number of other twists that disguise the contradiction."<br /><br />I think every person in this thread has agreed with me that anybody can hold contradictory positions in their mind, as long as the nature of the contradiction is sufficiently obfuscated that they don't see the problem.<br /><br />Well, how much obfuscation is required? Obviously it varies from person to person. Logic puzzles that present a dozen or so propositions like "Bob is a painter," "The painter has a daughter," "The architect is single" etc, can easily slip a contradiction in that is hard to detect unless you put in a whole lot of work. Therefore, I can read a dozen statements that wind up being obscurely but provably contradictory, and <i>believe them all</i> without causing any mental anguish at all. Probably if the same contradiction was reduced to three or four statements, I would notice it and complain.<br /><br />But then again, I'm trained in that sort of thing through programming and gaming. A person who is not used to that sort of thinking might easily miss a contradiction in three or four statements, or even less if he's dumb, unobservant, or just plain apathetic.<br /><br />What I'm saying is that there is no clear amount of obscurity that is "the right amount" to allow people to believe a contradiction, just as there is no definition of the creationist weasel word "kind." And I'd say the specific level of tolerance a given person has for contradictions is less important than the universal fact that <i>everyone can believe a contradiction</i> no matter how smart. After that, we're just arguing over a matter of how low this threshold has to be before you are allowed to apply the (also poorly defined) "insane" label.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05324968314168283095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-91640877193562585982009-10-22T11:37:40.719-05:002009-10-22T11:37:40.719-05:00"At this point the caller simultaneously hold..."At this point the caller simultaneously holds these propositions in his head:<br /><br />1. Everything the Bible says is moral.<br />2. Genocide is immoral.<br />3. The Bible is endorsing genocide.<br />"<br /><br />Not true. In your example, the caller has just had a dilemma clearly exposed to them and has said they'd get back to you - because they're trying to reconcile it.<br /><br />This is where rationalization and compartmentalization serve to obfuscate the dilemma.<br /><br />In fact, your particular example tends to result in apologists rationalizations like "God knew which ones could be saved". Why? Because they recognize the conflict and need to resolve it.<br /><br />If anything, your example supports what I've said. I don't believe you could find a (sane and honest) believer who openly states that they believe slavery is both moral and immoral...they'll claim it used to be moral, or any number of other twists that disguise the contradiction.Matt D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/06865398618141711897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-1914685822583685692009-10-22T05:50:22.606-05:002009-10-22T05:50:22.606-05:00It is possible to hold two contradictory beliefs s...It is possible to hold two contradictory beliefs simultaneously. George Orwell called it doublethink.Guillaumehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12376749604845793465noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-41047084018457598252009-10-21T20:10:28.523-05:002009-10-21T20:10:28.523-05:00I agree with Kazim on this issue - it is definitel...I agree with Kazim on this issue - it is definitely conceivable that one might hold two contradictory propositions simultaneously.<br /><br />And yet... I agree with Matt - it is impossible to believe X is true and believe X is not true simultaneously.<br /><br />Wait... does that mean that <b>I believe two contradictory propositions?!</b>Derek CAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04861722187567221950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-6084342265626133252009-10-21T17:17:35.816-05:002009-10-21T17:17:35.816-05:00@ Dines
A person who has never thought about the g...@ Dines<br />A person who has never thought about the god issue and holds no explicit position on it is an atheist by definition. Just because the type of people you usually call atheists are people like us who talk about this stuff all the time, doesn't mean you ignore the definition of the word. The people on here are all, for the most part, going to be activist atheists but anyone who doesn't hold a positive position of belief in a god is an atheist whether they think about the issue or not. This has been addressed many times on both of the ACA's shows as well as many other places.Archaneushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03996511005864112902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-55958392444105259972009-10-21T15:44:58.515-05:002009-10-21T15:44:58.515-05:00While I don't claim this to be the case, my th...While I don't claim this to be the case, my thought process centered around an assessment of a perfectly 50% chance that a claim is true. Under this situation, one cannot use evidence to claim that something is true or false, and it seems reasonable to assume that it could be either. You must accept that it is true just as much as you reject it if you are perfectly logical.<br /><br />Now, for theistic claims, I don't think anyone has put forth one that is remotely close to 50%, and I don't think the caller was struggling with a "it's just as likely" thought. In the end I think I agree with Matt's choice of words on the show, and with his follow up here in the comments, I have to agree even further.Geeky Atheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08978857405422880758noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-20663266700765711292009-10-21T15:41:40.481-05:002009-10-21T15:41:40.481-05:00People seem to zero in on the ”liar or insain” opt...People seem to zero in on the ”liar or insain” options, but I’d say there are at least two other options.<br /><br />The caller might use other definitions of the words atheist and theist. The caller might even be unaware of the proper definitions of the words and as such confused.<br /><br />The 2nd option I don’t think apply in this case, but is worth noting. What do we call a person who has never thought about the god issue? That person wouldn’t have taken a stance on the issue, and as such neither affirmed nor rejected the idea of a god or gods. I would consider that person neither an atheist or a theist.<br /><br />So to sum up, he could have been a lying, insane, confused or unaware. Or possibly Russel is right, and we can hold mutually excluding ideas in our minds without a mental meltdown Elipsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17747209791249717119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-46590821560602400352009-10-21T15:41:21.059-05:002009-10-21T15:41:21.059-05:00It's really hard to add to much to what Matt a...It's really hard to add to much to what Matt and Pippen say, I think they nail it. <br /><br />My two cents:<br /><br />I feel it depends on definitions and how specific you are defining what you are having the belief about.<br /><br />For example, the following "seemingly" contradictory statements could be true:<br /><br />"David hates all ethnic groups other than his own"<br /><br />"David loves all ethnic groups other than his own"<br /><br />The problem is the definitions of "love and hate" and the context based on the statements. David could love the way that they look different than him, but hate the way they all talk differently. <br /><br />I think someone looking at the above could say, "yeah, i see how the two statements can be conflicting and true at the same time".<br /><br />But, then you take these two statements:<br /><br />"David ALWAYS gets violently ill whenever he sees a white albino male human with green eyes, wearing red pants, red shoes, and a red shirt. No other feature matters for this to happen."<br /><br />and then, <br /><br />"David NEVER gets violently ill whenever he sees a white albino male human with green eyes, wearing red pants, red shoes, and a red shirt. No other feature matters for this to happen."<br /><br />Those are definitely contradicting statements, and no honest, rational person could say that someone could believe that both could be true. <br /><br />Another example could be:<br /><br />David says, "I'm an atheist"<br />then <br />David says, "I'm a theist"<br /><br />Expounding on that you could call him out...but then he could say something like, "well, I'm a theist in regards to Thor, but an atheist in regards to Yahweh."<br /><br />On this:<br /><br />Caller: "I believe that every word of the Bible is true, and a perfect moral guide."<br />Host: "What about the part where God orders them to slaughter everyone except the virgins?"<br />Caller: "The Bible does not say that."<br />Host: "[Chapter and verse]"<br />Caller: "...I'll have to get back to you on that."<br /><br />Russell, I believe you're comparing apples to oranges here.<br /><br />It's not like the guy says:<br /><br />Caller: "I believe that every word of the Bible is true, and a perfect moral guide."<br /><br />AND THEN in the next breath says:<br /><br />Caller: "I also do NOT believe that every word of the Bible is true, and a perfect moral guide."<br /><br />I truly believe that as Matt says, if the statements are precisely and clearly defined, two clearly contradictory statements can not be believed at the same time.<br /><br />Now, I will give you - as you wrote your title, "Can beliefs be inconsistent", that is true, up to the point where the beliefs and statements are SPECIFICALLY defined, but at the point they can not. <br /><br />"Can specific beliefs be inconsistent"? I'd have to say no unless you're mentally ill, insane/whatever. <br /><br />But, maybe that's the point you're trying to make :)Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08369597419388186889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-21736294972262106132009-10-21T15:38:08.603-05:002009-10-21T15:38:08.603-05:00I think if we add a third option to 'crazy'...I think if we add a third option to 'crazy' and 'lying', we're probably all saying the same thing: Ignorant. Especially when talking about something like the term 'atheist', which people use in many different ways (including, "I'm an atheist with respect to Thor, but not FSM"). I can see how someone could say they're both at the same time by not understanding the terms, or even by failing to communicate their position clearly. That said, my gut feeling when listening to the podcast was that the caller wasn't being honest (even with himself).Mobiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12319157372045400743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-1652217611825345632009-10-21T14:43:10.942-05:002009-10-21T14:43:10.942-05:00I'm with Matt on this one. Of course we accep...I'm with Matt on this one. Of course we accept the premise that people hold contradictory beliefs, but not about the exact same thing.<br /><br />For example, you believe that the boiling point of water is 200 degrees. You believe that a kettle heats to 100 degrees. You believe that you can boil water in a kettle.<br /><br />The person is not associating the beliefs.<br /><br />It's different to say you believe that the boiling point of water is both 100 degrees AND 200 degrees.<br /><br />The first has to do with logical deduction, the second has to do with your actual belief on a single topic.Zurahnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06325048684652466640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-49607157783259577202009-10-21T14:34:40.908-05:002009-10-21T14:34:40.908-05:00Someone can actually accept two contradictory posi...<i> Someone can actually accept two contradictory positions, but I'm convinced that this can only occur when they are unaware of the contradiction. The dilemma must be obfuscated in some way (including insanity).</i><br /><br />I think our callers disprove that assertion every week. Consider this hypothetical dialogue:<br /><br />Caller: "I believe that every word of the Bible is true, and a perfect moral guide."<br />Host: "What about the part where God orders them to slaughter everyone except the virgins?"<br />Caller: "The Bible does not say that."<br />Host: "[Chapter and verse]"<br />Caller: "...I'll have to get back to you on that."<br /><br />Very, very rarely this kind of dialogue can lead to a conversion. But that's an unusual case, so I'll assume the caller doesn't change his mind.<br /><br />At this point the caller simultaneously holds these propositions in his head:<br /><br />1. Everything the Bible says is moral.<br />2. Genocide is immoral.<br />3. The Bible is endorsing genocide.<br /><br />Probably in short order, he will somehow manage to crowd one of those propositions out. Perhaps they are just not bright enough to process the implications of the contradiction. But I think there are definitely periods of time when someone holds beliefs in his head that are in obvious contradiction to one another, and they are neither insane nor lying.<br /><br />Unless, of course, you believe that everyone is entirely rational.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05324968314168283095noreply@blogger.com