Debate: Do You Believe There Is Any Form Of Life After Death?
Side: Believe It

Clarifying RemarkAh, well, cripes. Your most recent comments suggest that my earlier remarks were largely not responsive to your position. Foremost, I mistook your original statement as a harder epistemic claim that you intended it to be. I did not appreciate that your use of "believe" was expressing a softer seemingness. I've adjusted my response accordingly, and am laying aside a fair bit of my earlier commentary as confusing or irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Refined ResponseFor subtly different reasons than before, I doubt whether the seeming inherent reliability of logic and reason can be logically or reasonably believed (i.e. as non-arbitrary and justified belief). I do think that the seeming non-inherent reliability of logic and reason can be logically or reasonably believed, and I think there are practical implications to this distinction.If logic or reason should in any instance prove impractical for engaging existence then we cannot logically or reasonably believe that logic and reason are seemingly inherently reliable. They would seem to be unreliable in at least that one instance and this defeats inherency. Logic and reason are given to us by perception not only as reliable but as phenomena in the first place. To logically and reasonably represent logic and reason to ourselves and to practice both we must minimally act as though our perception of their reliability is itself reliable. Otherwise, we have no logical or reasonable reason to believe in even the seeming existence of logic or reason, much less their seeming reliability.There is no logical or reasonable reason to suppose that our perceptions of and about logic and reason are true or correct. Worse, because the existence and seeming reliability of these phenomena are given to us by our perception we cannot use either logic or reason to prove anything about our perceptions of logic and reason (doing so would be circular and would invalidate the very thing we are seeking to validate). Indeed, the very notion of 'proving perception' becomes incoherent because the notion and practice of proof comes after perception; if we doubt the perception then we must doubt the ontological existence of proof in the first place.Insofar as not being able to accept the existence of logic and reason and not being able to regard them as reliable is impractical, we have good cause not to be agnostic about the reliability of our perceptions about logic and reason. But that agnosticism is precisely what logic and reason would compel. So, we have a highly significant instance of logic and reason not being reliable. Consequently, we cannot logically and reasonably believe that logic and reason are seemingly inherently reliable.With Respect to CommunicationI think what communication (and other action) demonstrates is the seeming inherent inescapability of perception, the content of which sometimes includes logical axioms. This does not to me suggest anything about the reliability (inherent or otherwise) of those logical axioms or any other content. With Respect to ApplicationsMy preceding analysis is one way in which I think your position over-commits to logic and reason, since logic and reason would lead us to an agnosticism that denies us our seemingly useful instruments in our seeming existence. That's still rather abstract, though, and what I meant by my original remark was a bit more everyday. I'm generally doubtful about the utility of logic and reason in our lives, particularly with respect to our everyday existence and interactions. We're not foremost reasoning or logical beings, and I don't think that's always or even usually something that harms us (though certainly there are cases where it does). Logic and reason set high cognitive and behavioral bars that just don't seem necessary or desirable in many cases. Sure, I want my surgeon to be logical and reasonable in the OR. If my friends were like that constantly over trivial things like ice-cream flavor selections or preferred walking routes I think I would find it annoying. And I'll out myself for a chaotic neutral and say sometimes being unreasonable is eminently satisfying. P.S. I believe that I addressed your original position and clarifying remarks adequately this time. I did not do my usual line-by-line reply format, since I led us a bit astray in my confusion over your position, so please let me know if I dropped anything significant that you would like me to take up again.