How do you have rational beliefs

[bunny]

What is a rational reason to believe in something?

It seems to me there are several ways. I believe any of these provide rational grounds for belief - I also believe you should continually test your beliefs and if one of these sources seems to contradict the others in some particular situation, you should doubt your beliefs in that situation.

1) Direct experience

If you experience something yourself which leads you to believe some statement to be a fact, this provides prima facie evidence for its truth.

2) Authority

If somebody tells you something is true and you have good reason to believe they would know then you have rational grounds for adopting that belief.

3) Scientific method

The scientific method is designed to give you good grounds for believing it's pronouncements. It is rational to believe results obtained through scientific investigation.

4) Intuition

First let me say that I dont mean guessing. I mean the subconscious ability to draw inferences in familiar situations based on previous experiences and a "gut-feeling" for how things work.

5) Logical deduction

If logic dictates that something should be true based on other rational beliefs you have, then you have good, rational grounds for believing that contingent statement also.

Any thoughts? Obviously I'm happy to argue for any of these if people are interested.

[madnak]

I think they're all valid in general, but to some degree I also think what we believe is highly subjective. No belief is "truly" rational as every rationally acquired belief has to rely on another more axiomatic belief.

[Darryl_P]

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Lestat]

I'm surprised that as a Christian, you completely skipped over testimonial evidence!

Actually, there is nothing wrong with testimony as evidence. I am not at the South pole right now, nor have I ever been there, but I believe it is cold and icy. I base this soley on testimony.

[Prodigy54321]

wouldn't that go under authority, or am I missing something?

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
wouldn't that go under authority, or am I missing something?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it would. No sure how, but I completely missed Authority in Bunny's post. Sorry Bunny!

[Copernicus]

Testimony and authority are not necessarily equivalent, authority is a subset of testimony. Eg. belief in miracles is generally on the basis of testimony from people who have no particular authority.

Can I get a witness?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
I think they're all valid in general, but to some degree I also think what we believe is highly subjective. No belief is "truly" rational as every rationally acquired belief has to rely on another more axiomatic belief.

[/ QUOTE ]
This seems a severely strict requirement on rationality. If we have no truly rational beliefs does the word refer to anything? What would be an example of something you consider rational?

[madnak]

I don't think anything "truly" rational can be conceptualized by humans. I think our biological programming has so much to do with what and how we think that we can never really divorce ourselves from it.

Representations of mathematics would be the closest thing.

[MidGe]

Whatver the belief, if it fits the facts, the observations, it is most likely rational, if it doesn't it is definitely wrong and therefore irrational.

Of course, the meaning of "rational" is based on reason.

[godBoy]

Yes, I think that you have evidences in all these areas without conflicting results it could be called a rational belief.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Whatver the belief, if it fits the facts, the observations, it is most likely rational, if it doesn't it is definitely wrong and therefore irrational.

[/ QUOTE ]
Surely you can have a rational belief that is false though? I think rationality is about how you have arrived at your belief, not an inherent property of the belief itself.

[MidGe]

Coorect.. that's why I used the words "most likely". OTOH a belive in something that does not fit the facts is defintely wrong, whether rational or not.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Coorect.. that's why I used the words "most likely". OTOH a belive in something that does not fit the facts is defintely wrong, whether rational or not.

[/ QUOTE ]
Something is wrong - either your belief or your understanding of the facts. Either could be doubted as they are both essentially competing beliefs. It would certainly be irrational to believe two contradictory statements.

[Bork]

[ QUOTE ]
It would certainly be irrational to believe two contradictory statements.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if you don't notice the contradiction.

[Bork]

[ QUOTE ]
OTOH a belive in something that does not fit the facts is defintely wrong, whether rational or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean does not fit the facts?
Plenty of beliefs that do not fit with empirical observations have been true beliefs.

You can of course luck across true beliefs even if the evidence doesn't support your belief or even strongly suggests your belief is false.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It would certainly be irrational to believe two contradictory statements.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if you don't notice the contradiction.

[/ QUOTE ]

true

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
You can of course luck across true beliefs even if the evidence doesn't support your belief or even strongly suggests your belief is false.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this was the case though, I think it would be an irrational (though true) belief. If the evidence strongly suggests you are wrong but you continue to believe anyway that is irrational behaviour in my opinion - although you will ultimately have the last laugh /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Bork]

Yes I agree thats about as irrational as it gets I was just responding to his claim that that if a belief "doesn't fit the facts it is definitely wrong."