[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
Have you been in a situation where you hear bad things about a person you like and you have a "Oh I cant believe they'd do that" response? Sure you may be able to justify your position through the use of evidence (ie your history with them) but I would suggest that's not how you form the view.

You start work in a new place, slightly out of your depth, with a one-week handover with the guy before you who bombards you with processes, procedures, etcetera together with a hodge-podge of justifications for why this is the best way to do it. Over time, you settle into the job, make the improvements you think are required as to how it should be done to boost efficiencey/accuracy/whatever is required by the job and you leave other procedures the same. Several years later, you leave and, in the handover to the next guy, he queries some of the processes that have survived from your predecessor. Would you think that some of your justification for why it seems best is just that you got into the habit of doing it that way and not that you actually sat down and critically evaluated every single one on the evidence?

Someone you respect and admire, with a better memory than you disagrees on some personal interaction between you. You can remember it, clear as day, being fundamentally different than how he recounts it. Have you been in the situation where you (at least intially) stubbornly persist in your version of events, even though the other guy is more usually right than you (or perhaps even though there are several people telling you you're wrong)?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is all missing the point a little - there's no question that I hold incorrect beliefs. It is also very likely that ego or force of habit prevents me from recognising that my beliefs are unsupported by evidence. What I can't do is simultaneously hold in my mind a belief and also the notion that I have no reason to hold that belief. I can certainly be wrong; I can even be wrong after I've been exposed to evidence which contradicts my beliefs. But I can't know that my beliefs have no basis.

[ QUOTE ]
With all of these situations, I think one can eventually realise that the evidence doesnt support your beliefs and then change them. However, I dont think it happens with a snap of the fingers as soon as you review the evidence. The class of beliefs I am referring to are those we have formed for other reasons (because it is inefficient to evaluate evidence every single time - rather we form mental habits as shortcuts) and havent yet realised are incorrect, even though we have been presented with the evidence which will eventually persuade us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed - but that's my point. After my brain manages to absorb and process that evidence, then my beliefs will change. Unless I am misunderstanding your beliefs, what you are saying is that you realise you have no basis for believing that there is a God, but believe it anyway.

I think I understand what this might be like. A few years ago I suffered from panic attacks and generalised anxiety subsequent to recreational drug use. If I were experiencing anxiety about something, I think it would be possible for it to be logically demonstrated to me that I had nothing to worry about and yet continue to worry about it. Under normal circumstances though, I don't think anything like this is possible.