Believing something that cannot be objectively known
- There are questions about the external reality to which I cannot have an objective answer. Not now and not in a thousand years.
For example, whether there is something that lies beyond my perception of the world.
- But whether an objective answer is actually possible does not influence whether I deem such a question as relevant for myself or not.
For example, many people deem the question whether there is a god as relevant. Even though it is quite common sense that this question is not objectively decidable.
- In the case I deem such a question as relevant, it is not possible for me to live agnostic regarding to that question.
For someone that deems it as an important question, whether there is a god, he cannot live as if he wouldn't care.
Not living agnostic to a question means having an opinion on it.
It is perfectly valid to have an opinion about such objectively unknowable questions.
Such an opinion, however, CANNOT have an objective basis. And thus must be based on purely subjective preferences.
Therefore, it is not possible for me to be right about my own opinion in the sense that I cannot have a "real" reason for it. If it turns out that I was actually right, it was only by chance.
Not being able to be right does not imply, that I cannot be be convinced of my own opinion. It is possible for me to be convinced of my own opinion and still accept that I cannot be right.
Additionally, accepting that I cannot be right, brings me closer to the truth than just simply taking my own opinion at face value.
Other people can have opinions on such questions too.
They can't have an objective answer either. They are sitting in the same boat as me.
Thus, each opinion is equally valid in the sense that nobody can "know it better"
In the following post I will try to elaborate on each point more detailed.