Ugh. What a mess you've made of simple concepts by which humans interact, communicate, and negotiate the world.
Nope. It wasn't me who decided it was acceptable to use words interchangeably and thus confuse things unnecessarily.
So one can worry about that. No need for belief.
Huh? One didn't wake up one morning and doesn't want to repeat the experience? Reincarnation with accompanying past life memories spring to mind, but you don't mean that do you?
...In some hypothetical cases (such as if I were gravely ill),...
Still no need for belief.
Still no belief...but we can debate that...
...or wishful thinking might also apply...
Ah - there we go. A case of something, if not belief then very close to belief - attached to your example... but of course, now you will have to alter your original example a little bit to fit this particular position, and when you do so, your example still does not argue my statement "Therefore anyone claiming to be a rationalist must be free from belief. From all forms of belief."
I am interested in why wishful thinking would be considered rational thinking.
Of course there is, because I do not live in a vacuum. I interact with other people who have certain expectations of me, including my participation in basic social interactions. They say, "see you tomorrow," and I can either say nothing, say something like "maybe," or say something like "yes."
If I say nothing, I'm defaulting from social interaction for no good reason. If I say "maybe," it creates concerns for the person I'm interacting with. It would suggest that I'm indifferent as to whether or not I'll see them tomorrow, or perhaps not feeling well; either of those has social implications that they would tend to want to follow up on, such as by asking "oh, what's wrong, Sweetheart?" or by saying "If you don't take your job more seriously than that I'll have to let you go."
So essentially you are saying that people are so limited by their language structures that they have to pretend things they do not mean - just to get by in a society which is pretentious and says things to itself it does not mean.
Surely it can be worked around...try this;
Person: "See you tomorrow,"
Me: "Barring anything which might prevent this, yes you surely will!"
Or
Me: "That's the plan. yes."
If I say "yes," it means that our respective plans and relationship, whether personal or business, are proceeding more or less normally and are expected to continue, barring future news to the contrary.
You are saying that the 'yes' word signifies belief, and thus belief is a part of the process of social interaction and so saying 'yes' in this case is appropriate.
However, "barring future news to the contrary" is the thing which forces the belief.
"Barring future news to the contrary" is a rational contemplation. Its fits in with reality.
Regardless of your examples to do with social interactions, the interactions which force belief are not rational in the first place.
Society is not big on dwelling on the probability of future news which may contradict its actions in the present - actions that actually do have an affect on its plans in relation to the future.
One can believe all they want that the risks one takes now will reap the future rewards one is taking the risks now for.
Sometimes the belief pays off. Sometimes it doesn't. Either way the beliefs are irrational.
If someone is asking you something and you're answering, it usually means you're participating in social interaction, and the logical rational answer is the one that expresses your current aims and attitude for that interaction. Usually that aim is not to make a philosophical point, and assuming the circumstances are such that it's also not to express a dismissive attitude toward the other person or to inform them of some emergency, illness, or other immediate concern for your survival, the logical rational answer is "of course I'll be alive in the morning."
"Of course I'll be alive in the morning!"
It would just be a sort of irony if that didn't turn out to be the case.
So there is the assumption that logic and rationality are involved in the belief based expressions society uses to interact with, but these are not really logical or rational. They are just acceptable and even the unspoken demand in relation to social interactions.
Such expressions are demanded. The are not logical or rational expressions
and the demand to see them as being logical and rational expressions reflects on the society which is doing the demanding. It tricks itself.
Your argument demands that I acknowledge the rationality and logic of social belief systems when those social belief systems are simply activities of pretense.
Why can't people simply be honest with each other and say it like it is? Things don't have to be said unkindly or cruelly. Just honestly.
You are essentially claiming that to be "logical and rational," a person must behave like an antisocial jerk. That's just silly. It's exactly the same kind of ridiculous argument sometimes aimed at theists: "If you were really a Christian, you'd stone your misbehaving son to death because the Bible says so."
There is no reason why logical and rational expression HAS to be nasty, so no, I am not at all saying that logical rational expressions are the same as being an antisocial jerk.
Some people believe that cruel or hateful expression -while offensive or distasteful - is
necessary to allow contrary views to be challenged. They believe being offensive or distasteful is an acceptable expression of critical thinking and skepticism.
I think such a position is untruthful and irrational.
I believe that's entirely false.
Your belief is irrational.
Your argument has just consumed itself. You begin by "supposing" something, then reveal that "suppose" is a synonym for "assume" and "believe," then conclude with the assertion that assuming and believing are irrational. Hence, that argument (if sound) is irrational, and can be dismissed.
You misunderstand.
Since I was supposing that your argument is about presumption, my supposing is irrational.
If your argument is about assumption then there is no need for me to
suppose it is about assumption.
Of course I have a reason to bring belief in it. My life involves planning for the future, not just reacting to what's impinging on my senses right now. To do that I, like everyone else, must construct mental models of how the world works and what it is doing beyond my immediate and present senses. I then act based upon those models. If I wait until I'm hungry to obtain food, for instance, the store where I obtain food might be closed by then. In my model of the world, the store is open some times and closed at others, and I get hungry at certain intervals, so I can prepare effectively by shopping now for eating later. Those models are based on assumptions, expectations, beliefs (all synonyms, according to your dictionary quote) which I do not know to be true in every case (the store might be closed at a time I expect it to be open, due to some breakdown or emergency or unexpected change) but are true reliably enough to act upon effectively.
So because the the world largely operates the way it does, you are forced to believe.
This doesn't change the fact that belief is irrational.
It could be argued that such future preparation is not about belief at all but unfortunately the way language is used, it can be argued that your planing processes are operating through belief rather than simply logic based upon foreseeable circumstances beyond your ability to control directly.
What drives you to prepare ahead of time isn't belief, it is logic and the logic involves knowable variants such as the hours the shop is open, and you can be prepared.
Belief isn't really involved in your preparations in this regard.
Logic is.
Without expectations, assumptions, beliefs; without a mental model of the world; I'd end up hungry, outside the store at midnight, gaining entrance by means of a brick through the window (after all, I would have no certain expectations, aka beliefs, about future consequences) and eventually imprisoned or institutionalized. That's about as far from a rational approach to life as one can get.
You are arguing that beliefs are rational. I made it clear
here that they are not, but also acknowledged that while they are not, sometimes they have function, but when that function achieve its purpose, there is no longer any need for the belief.
There probably never was a need for the belief, but sometimes beliefs do take us places which can be helpful. It is still not a logical rational process.
The thing is, in relation to what you are arguing as being belief, you don't think about such circumstances as requiring belief based responses. You don't think about the responses as coming from a place of belief.
You don't go to sleep at night wondering if you will die in the process. That would be illogical and likely keep you awake.
You don't agree to see them tomorrow and wonder if something will happen to prevent that from occurring. That would distract you from living in the moment of reality.
You don't think about going to the store because you will get hungry - hunger is natural and you
don't have to believe that if you don't get to the store before you get hungry and the store closes, that you will stay hungry.
You
know that will be the case. Belief has nothing to do with that.
Just as you
know gaining entrance by means of a brick through the window is likely to get you in trouble and perhaps eventually imprisoned or institutionalized.
You might
believe that it won't, or that you may get away with it, but that would be irrational. Even if you did get away with it, the belief behind the action would still be illogical. The action promoted by the belief would still be irrational.
Fine. What if you're in bed ready to fall sleep at night, and you happen to remember that before going to bed you left a pot of water boiling on the stove. Do you "irrationally" think, "I'd better go fix that because I believe, though I don't know for certain, that otherwise harm might ensue," or do you "rationally" think, "The question of what might happen in the future, or whether I'll even be alive in the morning, is meaningless so nothing need be done"?
That is rather twisted Myriad. I am surprised you have given such an example.
If I go to bed and before falling asleep I remember I left a pot of water boiling on the stove, I would get up and turn the stove off.
That would be the logical thing to do. No belief involved.
If I
believed that no harm would come from ignoring the fact that I left a pot of boiling water on the stove and went to sleep, that would be very illogical. Belief is irrational.
You keep saying so, but you have made no case.
I will keep building on the case I am making then until you realize that I am correct that belief is irrational.
Unless I fail of course to get through your beliefs about this.
Rationality is not demanding certainty before acting upon a supposition/belief, nor in refusing to think or act without such certainty. (I don't know that that philosophy is called, but it's pretty likely to result in losing custody of ones dependents.) Rationality is choosing the most reliable and well-tested models of the world (aka beliefs) to act upon.
It might be rational to make choices regarding situations which you have no power to control, but refusing to think or act is not what I am speaking of in relation to belief.
I am saying that rational actions do not require belief in the first place.
If the most reliable well tested models of the world require belief, they are at best most likely illusions.
But you don't give any example as to what you mean. I would think that whatever the 'the most reliable well tested models of the world' are, they would not require me to think or act without me
knowing (rather than believing) that they are 'the most reliable well tested models of the world'
Give me an example of one such 'reliable well tested model of the world' and I will examine that example for any sign of belief having to be involved in ones using that.
