Nonetheless, there's an attempt to reason, no matter how contrived or affected, even in rationalization, right? Commendable in spirit then, if not in letter. — TheMadFool

Not necessarily. People are varied in their level of rationalizing, versus being rational. Rationalizing is an attempt to support one's emotional belief. If one rationalization fails, another will be invented depending on how much a person clings to that belief.

But I do believe that if you can rationalize, you have the potential to be rational. There are plenty of philosophers who rationalize. They may talk a good game, or create a system that fits within narrow confines, but in the end is not really rational.

Being rational requires a self-awareness of your emotional bias and desires. We need those biases and desires to care, but we need to measure ourselves that to times when we must let those biases and desires go in the face of contrary evidence.

Anyone can come up with reasons that confirm what they desire to be. Only the truly rational can conclude their desires were wrong. It is something we all have to be vigilant against, and can easily stumble on.

But I do believe that if you can rationalize, you have the potential to be rational. — Philosophim

That's what I was going for.

They may talk a good game, or create a system that fits within narrow confines, but in the end is not really rational. — Philosophim

If you ask me, people rationalize about personal matters. I suppose philosophers are deeply attached to their ideas, theories, etc., this making them prone to rationalization - you know comforting themselves that what they're doing is for a reason other than their real motives which may range from fear of being proved wrong to a desire for fame and glory.

Being rational requires a self-awareness of your emotional bias and desires. — Philosophim

Easier said than done, don't you think? It's a huge step going from theory to practice, from reading stuff in books and actually doing them.

Anyone can come up with reasons that confirm what they desire to be — Philosophim

Confirmation bias - a known cognitive issue.

All in all, my take on this issue is simple: No one, including philosophers and other breeds of thinkers from the world of science and other fields, will ever undertake anything worthwhile if fae doesn't have a stake in it whatever that may be. It would be superfluous to mention the man on the Clapham omnibus at this point. Given this is so, rationalization seems inevitable and is likely to be universal - happening everywhere, anywhere, to anybody.

Your belief in the device on which you are reading this and their belief in an invisible friend are not of the same order. — Banno

You don't "believe" in the device you are writing on; you see, hear and feel it.

No one, including philosophers and other breeds of thinkers from the world of science and other fields, will ever undertake anything worthwhile if fae doesn't have a stake in it whatever that may be. It would be superfluous to mention the man on the Clapham omnibus at this point. Given this is so, rationalization seems inevitable and is likely to be universal - happening everywhere, anywhere, to anybody. — TheMadFool

I agree!

No one, including philosophers and other breeds of thinkers from the world of science and other fields, will ever undertake anything worthwhile if fae doesn't have a stake in it whatever that may be. — TheMadFool

What does "fae" mean? Fairy?

If I can translate this in my own way - with or without fairies - I would say that men would do nothing - knowledge included - without emotional motivation. Faith is a kind of emotional motivation. But motivation is not knowledge. You can believe in many things, but none of them is knowledge if you cannot justify it sufficiently.

What does "fae" mean? Fairy? — David Mo

I'm trying to avoid having to write he/she, him/her, using gender-neutral words that I picked up from a website.

Fae = he/she
Faer = him/her
Faers = his/hers
Faerself = himself/herself

It's got to do with the LGBT movement and so I see it as a win win.

men would do nothing - knowledge included - without emotional motivation — David Mo

Isn't that a tautology?

Faith is a kind of emotional motivation — David Mo

I'm more inclined to think faith is a mode of belief acquisition but it's no secret that it has emotional underpinnings. That said, is the whole enterprise of seeking proof of god more rationalizing then ratiocinating? @Philosophim Perhaps both. It doesn't hurt to discover one was right all along.

You don't "believe" in the device you are writing on; you see, hear and feel it. — Janus

... and you believe that sense experience constitutes reality, no? Perhaps not much different than believing our ideas about a G/god are representative of any reality.

Every position, whether it is "religious, political, philosophical" or otherwise, begins and relies on some founding axiom or inherent principle, whether or not one wishes to use the word "faith" or otherwise".

For example, most would reject the idea of solipsism on "faith", they couldn't "prove" it true or false, but would consider it absurd and reject it on that basis.

I think that our notions of reality are based upon sense experience. Notions of reality can also be derived from reifying linguistically mediated concepts. When we imagine such things, though, the storehouse we draw upon is the images and concepts derived from sensory experience. Not sure what your point is, though.

Kind of trying to find an entry point here.

It seems you were suggesting a difference between believing and feeling/sensing etc., but actually it seems that the faith/belief we have in a God, religious doctrine, or our experience aren't totally distinct or far off from one another, save from the fact that we "believe" in our devices because we sense them, and we "believe" in our ideas without necessarily sensing what it is they refer to. What seems to place them on the same terms is that both are bases for our own attention, thinking, and action. If we didn't have some sort of faith in our ability to affect anything, for example, I doubt we would even act. By this token even so-called determinists could be said to have faith in their action by way of (edit: their) assuming that their input will or will not have some sort of impact, meaning, or influence.

Any way, the idea in which we believe in may be modified or altered by new sense experiences or understandings of how religion and life come together. And our sense experience may be shaped by what it is we have faith in, because our faith shapes the ways in which we attend to things (i.e. the senses).

So basically, we all believe in something, and although we may think religious faith is baseless, it seems that during the course of holding to faith it actually acquires a number of bases, but ones which are not necessarily easily communicable; it's not exactly verifiable to others by way of concrete evidence or even rational argument. Thus some find it difficult to talk to others without being encountered with a claim that the faith ought to be proven, or that its baseless because there is no clear evidence, and not much more to say than "I can't prove it to you. You need to have faith to see it yourself." And so it seems that faith would actually (edit: purportedly) lead to an experience which is un-measurable. And in this sense one who makes an "argument of faith" may be headed in the direction of an argument by anecdote.

i agree and it goes beyond philosophy. Nearly everyone has beliefs about the opposite sex, how to deal with powerful people, how much each emotion should be expressed and to what degree for each one, how much sentience other lifeforms have...as some examples....and these beliefs have been arrived at through a variety of processes most of which would not hold up in court. Not only do we have those beliefs, but they affect how we relate to other people (or species), how we judge them, how we reward or punish them, how we behave in relation to them. IOW these beilefs have real effects often important ones, even in the cases where we are not aware of our own beliefs, which can often be the case around race or gender, etc.

I think a little humility is appropriate when dealing with other people's faith or intuition or beliefs arrived at through non-scientific processes, because we all have these.

In science, up into the early 70s it was considered utterly unjusitifed to consider animals as having emotions, motivations, desires, and as experiencers. In fact to assert they did have these qualities could damage your career. It could not be demonstrated, it was thought, in the scientific community, so skepticism was considered the rational default. And yet quite rationally animal owners and trainers, farmers and all sorts of other lay people know damn well animals were, like us, conscious, goal oriented, experiencers with preferences.

Futher we all makes choices to believe in certain experts and in cases of non-consensus these experts as opposed to those. Those who focus on empirical science, still follow their intuition in making decisions because we cannot do the reserach ourselves. Those who followed the consensus of experts in the 40s and 50s about animals would have believed in a position about animals that seems ridiculous today. Thus an intuitively arrived at positions based on the conclusions of scientific experts and models would have been wrong.

None of what I am saying here means that I consider all positions correct or equally likely to be or that science doesn't have an incredibly effective epistemology and set of methodologies for arriving at great models. Nor that sitting alone in a room mulling would have produced quantum physics or neuroscience. I am not a Rationalist, certainly not in any pure form.

But there are always paradigmatic issues and interpretations based on current models and other potential areas of bias. And we all draw important conclusions based on epistemologies we may not want to acknowledge is ok when others base their conclusions on them.

I appreciate your effort, but I think we may be talking at cross purposes. When I say we don't believe in our devices, which are just stand-ins for the everyday world of things generally, I mean that we perceive them, so there is no need for belief. Belief only arises where doubt is reasonable. There is no need for the question as to their independent or absolute existence to arise (and it has been shown to be an incoherent question or at least to have no coherent answer). We know, beyond any reasonable doubt, that they exist, for us at least.

The question of the existence of God is of an entirely different order. Actually it is arguably an incoherent question in the some similiar kind of way as the independent or absolute existence of everyday objects is. Although at least in the latter case we can say that logic tells us that there must be "something" that exists independently of human perception.

But what can we say of the absolute existence of, say, a chair other than that it is a chair, or a collection of atoms, or a wooden structure or something that it is as it is perceived and understood by us. So we cannot say of anything that it is anything other than what it is for us, except in principle; Kant's "unknowable X" perhaps. But of what use is it to attempt to say anything more than that, anything that purports to go beyond the initial realization that dispels naive realism?

Isn't that a tautology? — TheMadFool

I don't think so. Psychologists also talk about rational or biological motivation.

I'm more inclined to think faith is a mode of belief acquisition but it's no secret that it has emotional underpinnings. — TheMadFool

Faith is the motive for believing in a god. They believe that a god exists because of their faith. Since it is not a rational or biological motivation, I believe it is an emotional motivation to believe.

Psychologists also talk about rational or biological motivation. — David Mo

What are these?

Faith is the motive for believing in a god. They believe that a god exists because of their faith. Since it is not a rational or biological motivation, I believe it is an emotional motivation to believe. — David Mo

I would refrain from saying faith is "...not a rational...motivation". It might be totally reasonable to assume, on faith, certain truths and, theories. :chin:

Every position, whether it is "religious, political, philosophical" or otherwise, begins and relies on some founding axiom or inherent principle, whether or not one wishes to use the word "faith" or otherwise". — IvoryBlackBishop

Common humans in common situations do not use axiomatic belief systems. Therefore, I assume that your mention of "axioms" is merely metaphorical. I suppose every human believes in some things without strict evidence of them. If this is what you mean, I would agree with you.

But not all beliefs ("axioms") have the same degree of evidence. If we abandon the criterion of black or white evidence, we can recognize some strong and justified beliefs against others that are not justified.

For example, I cannot personally present any evidence for the curvature of the Erth (my mathematical and physical knowledge are limited) but I believe that my belief in what physicists say is justified in front of the defenders of the flat Earth. Is it not?

Faith (I mean believing by faith) is a typical unjustified belief. It is not sustained by any rational indication but only by emotional desire. It is not the same as any other belief.

What are these? — TheMadFool

Rational: you decide to buy in a shop because it sells the same products at a better price than another.

Biological: You drink water because you are thirsty.

I guess it's things like that. It is not that emotions do not play a role in all (or almost all) motives, but sometimes we choose against them because we have other kinds of motives that weigh more. Like the one I just put above.

It might be totally reasonable to assume, on faith, certain truths and, theories — TheMadFool

If one belief is more reasonable than another, it ceases to be faith by definition. Faith consists in believing for the sake of it, even in what is absurd, as Paul of Tarsus said --he should know what he was talking about.

You mean that there are rational arguments for believing in God. For example, when Pascal uses the argument of the bet, his belief in God is no longer due to his faith and becomes an attempt at proof. Badly founded, in my opinion, but I don't want to discuss this now, because it would take us off topic.

Rationality consists in being open to the possibility of evidence against our belief.

Rational: you decide to buy in a shop because it sells the same products at a better price than another.

Biological: You drink water because you are thirsty. — David Mo

Why is it "because" in both cases? I'm asking because you've spoken as if they're different in the sense that biological motivation is somehow not rational but since it looks like the word "because" or its equivalents can't be avoided in both kinds of motivations and too, their meanings don't seem to be different on both occasions, what gives?

If one belief is more reasonable than another, it ceases to be faith by definition — David Mo

A very good observation on your part but I'm not talking about that kinda reasonableness. To clarify, there seems to be, insofar as reasonableness matters, two kinds of reasons:

1. Reason that justifies a given proposition P (this is
where what you said is relevant)

2. Reason that suggests/recommends a choice between two equally unjustified propositions. This, it seems, requires more explanation. An example might help. There is neither proof that god exists nor proof that god doesn't exist. In other words, the scales of truth, and thus our options for belief, are equally balanced. In this case, it's "reasonable" to believe something despite both god's existence and nonexistence being equally unjustified. Agnosticism is irrelevant for the simple reason that there are believers and nonbelievers i.e. some people think that it's "reasonable" to take a stance, choose a side, without any solid justification at all. (this is where what you said is irrelevant)

:chin:

It doesn't take faith to believe natures law is almost inseperable from God will I suggest you start with "the crook in the lot" by Thomas Boston
And I'd be willing to have a talk with you.

Why is it "because" in both cases? I — TheMadFool

The word 'reason' means two different things:
a) The cause or motive for something to have happened.
b) The ability to reach valid conclusions according to the facts and logic.

That is why I can say without redundancy that the reason for having done something (in the first sense) is reason (in the second sense). In the same way I can say without contradiction that the reason for doing something is not reasonable. It would be clearer if we talk about motives and rational arguments.

There is a difference. In your example: a biological impulse (thirst) can lead me to drink water that reason advises me not to drink because it is contaminated. This is not an unusual example. Men often do things under biological or emotional impulses that reason advises against.

I am not discussing logic or epistemology, but the psychological impact of reason as motivation versus other reasons. That is, not about whether someone is right or wrong in his or her thinking, but about the 'cause' of what he or she thinks.

You seem to mix both aspects of the issue (reasons and arguments) in your last paragraph. If a certain question is undecidable for logical reasons, the logical position is to refrain from all judgement, i.e. scepticism. Preference would be a subjective matter in the same way that someone may prefer red to blue. But the subjective choice to believe or not to believe in gods has objective consequences. And these consequences must be discussed rationally.

By the way, I don't believe that there is no rational evidence about gods’ existence. I think there are rational arguments against the existence of gods that justify disbelief.

The word 'reason' means two different things:
a) The cause or motive for something to have happened.
b) The ability to reach valid conclusions according to the facts and logic. — David Mo

Nice! :100:

That is why I can say without redundancy that the reason for having done something (in the first sense) is reason (in the second sense). — David Mo

This induces bafflement. I presume the distinction was necessary. So, why not stick to your guns instead of trying to have a foot in both camps?

It would be clearer if we talk about motives and rational arguments. — David Mo

:ok:

I suppose I have a fairly good grasp of what it is that you want to convey. I concur with you on all points you've made so far except those that've I stated seem a bit off to me.

It's true that the word "reason" is more nuanced than I realized. I'm especially indebted to you for pointing out how it can mean both a cause in re biological motivation and a premise as in rational motivation.

You mentioned something else in our conversation:

Faith is a kind of emotional motivation — David Mo

What's "emotional motivation"?

Staying on topic, how does all that you've said and faith hang together?

For my money, I'm going to run with the conventional reading of what faith is - it's the practice of believing something sans evidence/proof. We know, from experience, that people are, generally, reluctant to believe on faith alone. If this were not true, entire nations should be in the grips of con artists, right? So, it's settled, faith isn't all that popular.

Having said that, we shouldn't forget to factor in the many times when con artists did succeed in defrauding people. These, if nothing else, suggests that faith is alive and kicking in the general population even if in the wrong places.

In line with your thoughts then, it's patently clear, people are actually investing belief on faith. This means there are certain, to borrow your word, "motivations", for practising this mode of belief acquisition (faith). What these are in actuality is anyone's guess.

To not get distracted from the main issue - faith and religion - I suggest we focus our attention on the motivations for faith alone unless a you feel a detour is germane to the OP.

Too, in my humble opinion, you should take a look at @Philosophim's take on the issue - your theory of motivations sounds very much like his theory that if people offer a "reason" when their faith is challenged it turns out to be a case of rationalization. Perhaps it's just a superficial resemblance, I'm not sure.

As for what I've said, about the reasonableness of making a choice between two equally unjustified claims, I suppose it boils down to rationalization or your theory of motivations.

Nonetheless, to offer something in my defense, I would like to cite so-called axiomatic systems - a very small aspect of ratiocination of course - wherein you simply assume the truth of certain propositions and see what it leads to. Such systems don't seem to fit into your theory of motivations, neither does Philosophim's theory of rationalization explain it very well for the simple reason that there are no reasons that determine one's choice of axioms. Axioms, by definition, lack reasons for belief.

faith isn't all that popular. — TheMadFool

Except among Episcopalians, Papists, Muslims, Hindus, Shintoists, animists, Scientologists and a long etcetera that adds up to a few billion human beings. If we add those who have faith in Hitler, Trump, Bolsonaro, Putin and other lesser fools, we are a handful of 'foolish' rationalists (be worth the paradox).
I think that the Age of Enlightenment is still to come... if climate change lets it. Which I doubt, to my regret.

Axioms, by definition, lack reasons for belief. — TheMadFool

Of course. That is why axioms are only valid in formal sciences. In our knowledge of facts, scientific or vulgar, rationalism demands us to question our principles. This is one reason why there are only a handful of people who try to be a coherent rationalist. It is more comforting to have a a digestive wisdom that promises us eternal happiness than to be a materialist who claims that after death there is nothing but death. As Dostoevsky said, if someone shows me that God does not exist I will continue to believe that Christ was God.
This is the faith of the submissive and Paul of Tarsus. The only ones who will go to heaven along with the jihadists and other religious serial killers.

This is one of the reasons/motives.

Except among Episcopalians, Papists, Muslims, Hindus, Shintoists, animists, Scientologists and a long etcetera that adds up to a few billion human beings. If we add those who have faith in Hitler, Trump, Bolsonaro, Putin and other lesser fools, we are a handful of 'foolish' rationalists (be worth the paradox).
I think that the Age of Enlightenment is still to come... if climate change lets it. Which I doubt, to my regret. — David Mo

This, to my reckoning, is what we call cognitive dissonance or so it seems. It looks like it's not true that the various categories you mentioned above actually believe in the thing they're supposed to - it's got more to do with habit than conviction of any kind. Too, beliefs (if not habits) of such kind don't translate into monetary or other kinds of losses and so are, let's just say, tolerated by the rational side of the human psyche.

That is why axioms are only valid in formal sciences. — David Mo

What prevents them from spilling over into other domains like life and living it?

In our knowledge of facts, scientific or vulgar, rationalism demands us to question our principles. — David Mo

Last I heard there's no end insofar as "to question our principles" is concerned. Munchhausen trilemma?

It looks like it's not true that the various categories you mentioned above actually believe in the thing they're supposed to — TheMadFool

I have no reason to think that, generally speaking, those who believe in a violent or compassionate god have other different reasons than their belief in that god. Another thing is that you think their beliefs are confusing or that they are at odds with the idea of a god that you believe in. But that is another matter. We are now discussing what is the base of those beliefs that you can think are confusing or wrong. Or not.

What prevents them from spilling over into other domains like life and living it? — TheMadFool

I don't know if I understood the question correctly. 'Spill over` puzzles me a little (damn phrasal verbs!). Can you change the verb? Do you mean 'apply to'? My answer follows this idea:

Natural sciences are not governed by 'axioms' because these are immovable principles, apart from the use of mathematics as an axiomatic-deductive system that applies to experience, which has the last word. That is why the theory of relativity or quantum mechanics has superseded or modified the principles of Newtonian physics. An axiom, on the contrary, is never touched. If in physics it happens like this, in our daily life, that we have principles less supported by evidence than in natural science, it is not and should not be an untouchable principle either. That is what a true believer is not willing to touch: the commandments of his god, faith in his god or the image of his god. If he does so, all his beliefs will collapse and that is not easy to bear.

Last I heard there's no end insofar as "to question our principles" is concerned. Munchhausen trilemma? — TheMadFool

The Munchausen trilemma disappears if we stop looking for absolute principles and look for reasonable principles.

I have no reason to think that, generally speaking, those who believe in a violent or compassionate god have other different reasons than their belief in that god. Another thing is that you think their beliefs are confusing or that they are at odds with the idea of a god that you believe in. But that is another matter. We are now discussing what is the base of those beliefs that you can think are confusing or wrong. Or not. — David Mo

I'm only drawing your attention to the possible fact that what you see as faith-based beliefs may not actually be that - they could simply be habits learned through repetition in settings like family, work, friends, community, culture, country, etc. In other words, your counterexamples to my claim that people, generally, aren't inclined toward faith are not so.

I don't know if I understood the question correctly. 'Spill over` puzzles me a little (damn phrasal verbs!). Can you change the verb? Do you mean 'apply to'? My answer follows this idea: — David Mo

Well, let me rephrase it as best as I can. What prevents you or me or anyone from assuming things, anything at all - propositions, theories, whatnot? For instance, as we speak, I can, for no reason whatsoever, assume that god exists or even that fae doesn't.

Of course, you might say that doing so has consequences in that certain other propositions are entailed and then the issue of consistency/inconsistency arises. Is this what you want to say? If yes, then what about propositions that are consistent with relevant other propositions? Does consistency in itself justify, is it a measure of, truth?

I don't think so.

You seem to be in the know about how science works. A scientist constructs, not one but many, hypotheses that explains a given set of observations and more than one may fit the data. What then? I'm familiar with one method that allows a choice to be made between competing hypotheses - Ockham's razor (seek simplicity) - but that has nothing to do with truth at all. Too, what if two candidate hypotheses are equally simple? What then? Can I not choose i.e. assume one of them to be true even though I have absolutely no rationale to do so? :chin:

The Munchausen trilemma disappears if we stop looking for absolute principles and look for reasonable principles. — David Mo

Interesting thought! What exactly is your point?

I'm only drawing your attention to the possible fact that what you see as faith-based beliefs may not actually be that - they could simply be habits learned through repetition in — TheMadFool

In your example faith (belief without justification) is caused (motivation) by habit. In this example habit is the cause, faith is the effect.

What prevents you or me or anyone from assuming things, anything at all - propositions, theories, whatnot? — TheMadFool

Does consistency in itself justify, is it a measure of, truth? — TheMadFool

Can I not choose i.e. assume one of them to be true even though I have absolutely no rationale to do so? — TheMadFool

What exactly is your point? — TheMadFool

Nothing prevents you from having a hypothesis if you do not take it as a certainty. Hypotheses must be tested, assumptions must be justified. Meanwhile, a hypothesis only delimits the field of possibilities. Only experience can turn a hypothesis into law, an assumption into knowledge. A hypothesis can be evaluated when experience has not yet come to its aid or when experience gives the same support to the opposite hypothesis. Here coherence plays a fundamental role. An inconsistent hypothesis is immediately discarded. Empirical confirmation is not necessary under these conditions. Ockham's razor is one criterion among others in the contrast phase of the opposite hypothesis. It is not a criterion of truth in itself. I agree with you. In reality there is no single criterion of truth. Scientists play with different supports for one or another hypothesis. Hypotheses are rarely definitive. This introduces some degree of intuition into science and this is what makes science interesting for many of them.

What I say about the hypothesis is also valid for common assumptions at a lower level of exigency. In my opinion, common knowledge is an imperfect variant of scientific knowledge. Therefore, an assumption may obtain some rational or non-rational justification. In the first case it is knowledge. In the second case it is faith or something similar.

Science and common knowledge do not produce any absolute certainty, although some legal propositions are so obvious that they can be considered absolutely certain for practical purposes. Faith is not knowledge. No certainty can be drawn from faith.

This is what I mean when I speak of reasonable principles.

In your example faith (belief without justification) is caused (motivation) by habit. In this example habit is the cause, faith is the effect. — David Mo

You're proposing a causal link between habit and faith here. How does that work? Do you have a causal argument to support this?

Nothing prevents you from having a hypothesis if you do not take it as a certainty. — David Mo

That's reassuring. So, how certain can we be?

Only experience can turn a hypothesis into law, an assumption into knowledge. — David Mo

What do you mean by "experience"?

An inconsistent hypothesis is immediately discarded — David Mo

Yes, but as I informed you and that might not have been necessary, there are/could be times when multiple hypotheses may be consistent with observation, all of them equally appealing in every known measure of appeal. What then? Am I not free, in the sense there are no justifications to force a choice, to choose any one of these hypotheses?

You're proposing a causal link between habit and faith here. How does that work? Do you have a causal argument to support this? — TheMadFool

You repeat so much the experience of seeing the sun rise every morning that you end up believing that it will always be like that. The believer who repeats a prayer with a lot of force ends up accepting it as an untouchable mantra. This is how superstitions work, as Skynner demonstrated with a dove.

Whether there is freedom or not I don't know. I can give an opinion on this, but I don't know.

What do you mean by "experience"? — TheMadFool

Knowledge extracted and/or justified from the senses.

What then? Am I not free, in the sense there are no justifications to force a choice, to choose any one of these hypotheses? — TheMadFool

In that case you refrain from giving your opinion. Only in very special circumstances do you take an option without any support. But it is very rare to find a circumstance in which there is no slight support for an option. Most often you find some reason to believe in something. It all depends on you being able to find the best one.

In the case of religious options what you do is choose one or the other after hearing from those who defend or attack your belief. And you choose from those options. If you are honest you will recognize that you are not very sure. This happened even to Teresa of Calcutta, as she herself acknowledged. If you are not sincere with yourself you will say that your faith is unshakable (Paul) or that you have irrefutable proof that your god exists (Thomas Aquinas).

You repeat so much the experience of seeing the sun rise every morning that you end up believing that it will always be like that. The believer who repeats a prayer with a lot of force ends up accepting it as an untouchable mantra. This is how superstitions work, as Skynner demonstrated with a dove.

Whether there is freedom or not I don't know. I can give an opinion on this, but I don't know. — David Mo

I can accept that but I'm interested in the causal claim that habit leads to faith. How? By tue way your sun example is an inductive inference - it has nothing to do with habit.

As for your view on praying and superstition, you're spot on. Many cases of superstition are examples of false cause fallacies: non causa pro causa or post hoc ergo propter hoc.

It appears you're right. Habit can cause faith in some kind of a feedback loop - faith induces the development of ritualistic behavior, these become habits, and habits reinforce [cause] faith...round and round we go in the carousel of faith and habit.

In that case you refrain from giving your opinion. — David Mo

If I have the opportunity of marrying two equally attractive women, your advice is to not marry at all? :chin:

By tue way your sun example is an inductive inference - it has nothing to do with habit. — TheMadFool

The belief that the sun will rise tomorrow is based on the belief that the past will repeat itself in the future. This is the basic principle of induction. Obviously induction cannot be justified by induction. Only habit justifies it. It is a natural habit, but a habit.

If I have the opportunity of marrying two equally attractive women, your advice is to not marry at all? :chin: — TheMadFool

Have you considered bigamy?