Consider the following thought experiment. Adam has been in a state of severe anxiety for years now. Recently he obtained overwhelming evidence that he is going to die if he does not get rid of his anxiety. He also has overwhelming evidence that the only way for him to acquire peace of mind is to believe that God does not exist. Now, suppose that Adam has in fact overwhelming evidence for God's existence. In an ultimate attempt to save his life he nevertheless starts to try to force himself psychologically to believe - contrary to the evidence - that God does not exist. After two weeks he finds himself in a state of believing that God does not exist. As a result he obtains the desired peace of mind and thus loses his anxiety. In this way he manages to save his life. Now consider the following question. Is Adam's believe that God does not exist rational?
Note: For the puzzle it doesn't matter if we would have assumed that Adam has overwhelming evidence for God's non-existence and for the fact that the only way for him to acquire peace of mind is to believe God exists.
zaterdag 18 oktober 2014
Abonneren op:
Reacties posten (Atom)
2 opmerkingen:
What does ”overwhelming” mean? I don’t think it’s possible to just stop believing in something for which there is overwhelming evidence. For instance, there is overwhelming evidence that the city of Amsterdam exists. Would there be as much evidence for Adam to believe in the existence of God as there is for us to believe in the existence of Amsterdam?
But of course in a thought experiment everything is possible.
Let’s assume that Adam has a chance to have his head hit with a baseball bat by a violent street gang and that the hit would lead Adam to suffer a concussion that would cause two things. First, Adam would get rid of his anxiety. Second, Adam would lose his ability to think rationally. Now, would it be rational for Adam to lose rationality? Which is more rational, to be rational and unhappy or to be irrational and happy?
God makes the situation more complicated. It doesn’t really matter whether or not I believe in the existence of Amsterdam. Belief or non-belief in Amsterdam doesn’t have severe consequences. At most, I’d be considered foolish or irrational if I didn’t believe that Amsterdam exists, but that wouldn’t be a big deal. Belief or non-belief in God, on the other hand, may have severe consequences, depending on the nature, the characteristics and the will of God.
Hi Risto,
You write: "Which is more rational, to be rational and unhappy or to be irrational and happy?". Now, questions such as these are precisely the kind of questions to which my puzzle invites. So I think you're getting the point ;-)
Regards,
Emanuel
Een reactie posten