Funny you mentioned "geologist". I PM-ed this to a geologist tribe friend who is not a member of this tribe. I have not received a response yet.

Hmm. Don't you get caught up in the fact that you are part of the "experiment" as opposed to an impartial, external observer?

""Human relationships" does not at all seem the sort of subject for which scientific epistemology is suited, being highly subjective"

not to a psychologist. what's so wrong with analyzing subjective states objectively?

Jonathan:

Lewis is talking about belief in god and, in that paper, how a Xtian is justified in maintaining belief despite conflicting evidence. For Lewis, belief in god is a personal, loving relationship. He does not believe that god never "tests our faith" where that means "testing our fidelity". He says it would be wrong of a scientist to conduct scientific experiments to test the fidelity of his/her spouse. Doing so, for Lewis, is a sign of a problem in the relationship--a lack of trust and a breakdown of love.

He also claims that a person is justified in being an atheist if god has never attempted to establish a relationship with that person. But of course he believes that god will do this. (And at the end he cheats by appealing to Pascal's Wager.) Lewis talks about the different kinds of evidence that are appropriate within varying contexts. He is adamant about requiring evidence and even claims that "the evidence cannot be so weak as to warrant believing anything". There he is not talking only about the quality of specific evidence but about the criteria for determining what counts as evidence, which is where the question of belief management becomes appropriate.

For Lewis, religious experience is the best possible evidence. In the end, it is the rules of personal relationships that apply to belief formation and obstinacy in belief. He breaks out the difference between assenting and adhering to beliefs. He also states that when the evidence is overwhelming that one's spouse is cheating, for example, then it is irrational and unwarranted to maintain one's belief (adhere) that the spouse is faithful. This applies to giving up adherence and assenting. But, as I said, he cheats his way out of the obvious dilemma he creates for himself by appealing to Pascal's Wager at the end such that one must never give up adherence in relation to god.





From here I could go into the problem of evil as a violation of expectations, a violation of trust, within the context of "faith" as a personal relationship.