A) Could it be rational for a person to hold beliefs that are independent of empirical observation if (a) the person concedes that they are irrational and (b) is willing to drop them if they prove to not be useful?
Assuming that it is irrational to hold irrational beliefs, part (a) negates (A). (b) begs the question as to what their use is and what else can achieve that use. If something rational can achieve the same thing, would it not be superior?
I think for (A) to be true you have to allow for rational beliefs that are independent of empirical observation.
B) Could it be rational for a person to hold unusual beliefs as a result of contradicting empirical observations?
If “unusual beliefs” simply means “not what most people believe,” sure. Tying this to religious experiences and beliefs is a bit of a jump since you are beginning to place categorical restrictions to the beliefs. An argument can probably be made that there is no such rational religious belief. I have not seen it yet, but I have not looked around for one.
I would like to argue that there could be a more tolerant view of religion/theism here on Less Wrong. The extent to which theism is vilified here seems disproportionate to me.
Some of the difficulty may be that words like “tolerant” and “vilified” imply malice or hate. I see little reason to hate bad religious beliefs any more than other types of bad beliefs.
I think it can be rational to hold irrational beliefs. So there we differ, and now I understand better the way you and others are arguing against religious beliefs.
I believe now I will be able to communicate better with the group in general.
Later edit: Here, I was using the term irrational to mean beliefs that are beyond rational. Life absolutely requires such beliefs.
Assuming that it is irrational to hold irrational beliefs, part (a) negates (A). (b) begs the question as to what their use is and what else can achieve that use. If something rational can achieve the same thing, would it not be superior?
I think for (A) to be true you have to allow for rational beliefs that are independent of empirical observation.
If “unusual beliefs” simply means “not what most people believe,” sure. Tying this to religious experiences and beliefs is a bit of a jump since you are beginning to place categorical restrictions to the beliefs. An argument can probably be made that there is no such rational religious belief. I have not seen it yet, but I have not looked around for one.
Some of the difficulty may be that words like “tolerant” and “vilified” imply malice or hate. I see little reason to hate bad religious beliefs any more than other types of bad beliefs.
I think it can be rational to hold irrational beliefs. So there we differ, and now I understand better the way you and others are arguing against religious beliefs.
I believe now I will be able to communicate better with the group in general.
Later edit: Here, I was using the term irrational to mean beliefs that are beyond rational. Life absolutely requires such beliefs.