Illogically nested beliefs

[bunny]

Amongst my beliefs are the following positions:

theism - dualism - platonism

The path to each of them was unrelated, yet I suspect that the ones to the left would disappear if the ones to the right shifted. Ie if I was persuaded of materialism, I expect I would go back to being an atheist. If formalism was established (or similar) then I expect both the others would disappear shortly thereafter. This is despite the fact that they dont seem to logically rely on each other (although they're probably correlated). Anyone know if there a name for this phenomenon/fallacy?

[Phil153]

Indecision?

[bunny]

No - I'm clearly able to take a view.

My dualism does not depend on platonism in anything but the vaguest sense (I think?) Nonetheless, were someone to persuade me that numbers dont exist in themselves - I expect dualism would seem much less likely to me, for some reason I struggle to articulate.

[Bork]

[ QUOTE ]
Ie if I was persuaded of materialism, I expect I would go back to being an atheist.

[/ QUOTE ]

The truth of materialism entails that there is no ethereal God. So, unless you want to believe in God as a physical object, you better be an atheist if you are a materialist. The views are very general. Very general views tend to have serious implications for each other whether you come to believe them using independant justification or not. These views probably fit together in a way that seems plausible to you. If you drastically alter one general view it is very likely to have drastic implications which make other general views seem untenable.

Specifically when it comes to arguing about which kinds of things exist and which don't there are large correlations just based on what ways of thinking/arguments/evidence appeal most to you. Materialists are pretty much universally atheists. Dualists are very likely to be theists and vice versa. There is something odd about believing there is at least one God out there, but also believing we are nothing more than physical objects, no? They don't contradict each other, but it certainly seems problematic. Making a convincing argument to show that one commonly believed in spirit exists, but that some other does not, is pretty hard to do.

When you change one view you might drastically change (strengthen or weaken) what tools and materials are available to support/attack some other view. Basically I don't think the paths to any of those views are "unrelated", especially if you consider the implications of one view on the path to the next.