Can theists be rational?

[ponderingturtle]

No, it doesn't. What you and so many others here don't seem to understand is that, if someone deals cards, there must be a specific arrangement of them; i.e., the probability that there will be AN arrangement of them is 100%. The fact that the probability of any particular arrangement is tiny has no relevance whatever to the issue at hand, which is: What was the probability of the universe coming into existence without a creator?

And the probability that any universe that has someone in it asking if there is a god is also 100%, and it does not matter how likely it is either. You can argue that it came out that way by design of someone stacking the deck or by random chance, either way you are looking after the situation and the probability is 100%

In both cases you are looking at a historic situation and basing the argument on the specifics of a historic event.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Premise 2 of cj.23's argument was that the probability that the universe is inhabitable if God exists is much higher than if there is no designer. Whether or not you agree with the premise is another question altogether.

::sigh::

Premise 1 assumes that God exists. The conclusion (God exists) is assumed in that premise. It's not a matter of whether I agree or not, it's still a circular argument.

Try this: in premise 1, cj is basically saying that in 1 million universes, God exists in one of them. If you roll a fair million-sided die (or randomly select one of these million universes some other way), you've got a 1 in a million chance of choosing the one with a God. That's why premise one assumes there is a God.

Just to be clear, the 1:1,000,000 is a ratio. There could be any number of universes in cj's premise, but he's still assuming there is a God in 1/1,000,000th of them all. That's what it means to say there is a 1 in a million probability for the existence of God.

It's exactly why saying rolling a 3 on a normal die assumes that the 3 on the die exists. Starting with that 1:6 probability and using a Bayesian forumula to "prove" the existence of the 3 is circular reasoning.

The probability that God exists is not known. In fact, it is the question when you're trying to prove the existence of God. If you stipulate a probability, you're begging the question.

ETA: If God does not exist, there are 0 universes with God in it. It doesn't matter if it's 0:1 or 0:10 bajillion. If you say there is 1 in any number of them, you are assuming the existence of God.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

And the probability that any universe that has someone in it asking if there is a god is also 100%, and it does not matter how likely it is either. You can argue that it came out that way by design of someone stacking the deck or by random chance, either way you are looking after the situation and the probability is 100%

In both cases you are looking at a historic situation and basing the argument on the specifics of a historic event.

I'm not so sure the problem with the argument (as cj stated it anyway) is the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy. You actually can calculate the probability of something after it has happened. There are meaningful ways of doing this, though you've got to be careful. You might be right that this is also a problem.

I think the bigger and more obvious problem is that you cannot calculate the probability of God's existence (or the probability that God would create a universe with or without life) without assuming the existence of God. If you make that assumption in the premise and use it to reach the conclusion that God exists, the reasoning is circular.

Again, the probability of the existence of God IS the question. If you start with a premise that gives it a value, you're begging the question. (It would also be begging the question if I said the probability is 0 and arrived at the conclusion that God does not exist.)

 

[RandFan]

I think the bigger and more obvious problem is that you cannot calculate the probability of God's existence (or the probability that God would create a universe with or without life) without assuming the existence of God. If you make that assumption in the premise and use it to reach the conclusion that God exists, the reasoning is circular.

Again, the probability of the existence of God IS the question. If you start with a premise that gives it a value, you're begging the question. (It would also be begging the question if I said the probability is 0 and arrived at the conclusion that God does not exist.)

Agreed. It is empirical that the universe is here. If there is no god then the probability is 1. Of course one must first conclude that there is no god.

There's nothing to be gained by trying to calculate the likelihood of god creating a universe. It's here and that doesn't tell us anything other than it's here.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

The only rational theist is a dead one.

 

[Rodney]

Agreed. It is empirical that the universe is here. If there is no god then the probability is 1. Of course one must first conclude that there is no god.

There's nothing to be gained by trying to calculate the likelihood of god creating a universe. It's here and that doesn't tell us anything other than it's here.

By your logic, if police find a body on the street, they should say: "We don't know whether the victim died of natural causes, got hit by a truck, got done in by his boyfriend/girlfriend, or something else happened. There's no point in evaluating the evidence, the victim is dead. End of story."

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

There's nothing to be gained by trying to calculate the likelihood of god creating a universe. It's here and that doesn't tell us anything other than it's here.

Well said.

What do you think about the questions I've been trying in vain to steer this conversation toward?

Whether or not there is a way to have rational theism, most theists base their belief on pure faith and not even the perception of a rational proof. (I'll lump Kthulhut's personal subjective experience in with faith for the purpose of my questions.) These people are entirely capable of perfectly rational thought when it comes to other matters (even other religious beliefs!) Kthulhut is even capable of watching a magician perform illusions that look like levitation or vanishing, but reasoning beyond his subjective experience of those events to conclude that nothing vanished or levitated.

My question is, how and why do they choose to reject personal experience or faith in what some people tell them? Why shift gears in ways of thinking or standards of evidence?

Why accept this and reject that?

(Note: I'm not asking for this ongoing debate about possible rational proofs for God. I'm saying even if such things exist, most believers don't base their belief on them. I don't hear "Bayesian probability" anywhere near as much as I hear "childlike faith".)

A slight variation on this question is why is a mainstream or conventional religion considered OK, but other beliefs (no less rational than the mainstream ones) are considered to be the nonsense of a cult?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

By your logic, if police find a body on the street, they should say: "We don't know whether the victim died of natural causes, got hit by a truck, got done in by his boyfriend/girlfriend, or something else happened. There's no point in evaluating the evidence, the victim is dead. End of story."

That's a false analogy--at least wrt to the argument cj made. We know that people exist who can murder someone. When you ask what caused a death, we're not asking whether or not people who could murder do or do not exist. We can talk about probabilities of a certain wound being made naturally or by a human agent without being circular because we're not trying to prove the existence of human murderers.

In the question of God's existence, you can't start with a premise that assumes God exists without being circular.

 

[RandFan]

By your logic, if police find a body on the street, they should say: "We don't know whether the victim died of natural causes, got hit by a truck, got done in by his boyfriend/girlfriend, or something else happened. There's no point in evaluating the evidence, the victim is dead. End of story."

Well, to be fair, I made the statement in context of the discussion at hand and cj's argument. Yes, there is much we can infer from the fact that the universe is here. Supernatural entities is not one of those.

 

[RandFan]

My question is, how and why do they choose to reject personal experience or faith in what some people tell them? Why shift gears in ways of thinking or standards of evidence?

Why accept this and reject that?

It's a great question. As a Mormon my basis for belief was first subjective. I told myself that there was an intellectual component to my belief and I did much to try and shore up that foundation. I read Josh McDowell's evidence that demands a verdict and other sources. However, I had a lot of dissonance and it only grew the more I researched. And I gotta tell you, one of the biggest red flags was when people started to caution me against looking in depth at the facts.

If other people are like I was then they believe first and then work to fit the data to the model.

BTW: I learned magic when I was on my mission as a hobby and to entertain the children we often came into contact with when proselytizing. The psychology of magic wasn't lost on me.

 

[articulett]

"Aliens did it" is more likely than "magic man did it"...

But that is so remote that we don't even consider the possibility when we actually desire to solve the mystery.

 

[Bri]

Premise 1 assumes that God exists.

No, it only assumes that the existence of a deity is possible (i.e. the probability is greater than 0%).

Try this: in premise 1, cj is basically saying that in 1 million universes, God exists in one of them. If you roll a fair million-sided die (or randomly select one of these million universes some other way), you've got a 1 in a million chance of choosing the one with a God. That's why premise one assumes there is a God.

But it doesn't say anything about multiple universes. And if you assume that every possible reality is represented by a separate universe (and I don't know why you would assume that, but if you did) then yes, that assumption would require that a god exist in another universe if the probability of existence is greater than 0% (as would any other possibility have to exist in at least some other universe). But in that case, the conclusion is that the existence of a god in our universe is highly probable, which is NOT assumed in the premise.

The probability that God exists is not known. In fact, it is the question when you're trying to prove the existence of God. If you stipulate a probability, you're begging the question.

No, you're simply assuming a premise. You are free to reject that premise if you like, but that's another matter altogether.

ETA: If God does not exist, there are 0 universes with God in it. It doesn't matter if it's 0:1 or 0:10 bajillion.

But that's simply a rejection of the premise, assuming that the probability of a god existing is 0% (which would be equally unfounded).

If you say there is 1 in any number of them, you are assuming the existence of God.

Perhaps in some alternate universe (making your assumption that there are alternate universes for every possibility) sure. But we're talking about OUR universe here, and there is no assumption that there is a god in our universe by giving the probability of a god existing a value greater than 0%.

-Bri

 

[paximperium]

By your logic, if police find a body on the street, they should say: "We don't know whether the victim died of natural causes, got hit by a truck, got done in by his boyfriend/girlfriend, or something else happened. There's no point in evaluating the evidence, the victim is dead. End of story."

No. That's a false analogy.

The real analogy would be if a police finds a dead body, the chance that it is a dead body is 1. It is there, there is no point calculating what the likelihood that that dead body would be there because it already is.

How it occurred is a matter of investigation by the police just as how scientists are investigating how the cosmos came into being and all the mechanisms involved.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It's a great question. As a Mormon my basis for belief was first subjective. I told myself that there was an intellectual component to my belief and I did much to try and shore up that foundation. I read Josh McDowell's evidence that demands a verdict and other sources. However, I had a lot of dissonance and it only grew the more I researched. And I gotta tell you, one of the biggest red flags was when people started to caution me against looking in depth at the facts.

If other people are like I was then they believe first and then work to fit the data to the model.

BTW: I learned magic when I was on my mission as a hobby and to entertain the children we often came into contact with when proselytizing. The psychology of magic wasn't lost on me.

I appreciate getting a bit of your conversion story, but that's not really what I'm asking about.

I'm talking about a believer (not struggling with his belief or anything). I usually think in terms of most of my family members (Catholics). They'll mostly admit that there's no logical basis for their faith. It's faith. (It's not really a blind spot, the way I might have a stupid belief because I'm unaware of a bias I have or some such--they KNOW their belief is a matter of faith. Some believers are even proud that their belief is based on faith and not on evidence.)

But in other matters, they can be perfectly rational. Many of them are really good skeptics in other matters--demanding evidence commensurate with a claim, and so on. They'll reject nutty ideas about Bigfoot, Nessie, UFOs, psychics, faith healing, etc. They can be good at spotting misleading advertising. Heck--they can be downright cynical about claims in advertising!

Many of them in my family are even very skeptical about other religions. They'll hold Mormonism (for example!) to rigorous standards and even scoff at people who believe that nonsense. They'll especially scoff at, for example, the guy with the 666 tattoo who holds himself out as the second coming of Jesus Christ. His church is just a "cult" to them.

So what causes the gearshift in thinking?

I first thought that maybe it's about your upbringing. If your parents or other adult authority figures taught you the beliefs, you just accept those beliefs on that say-so.

In Roman Catholicism, it's part of the dogma that the teaching authority is somehow a lineage from Jesus, through Peter, the succession of Popes--even the murderous psychotic ones--through the present day Church hierarchy. But as an individual kid, it really comes from my parents and the priests and nuns that told me these things.

I understand for other kinds of Christians, reading the Bible directly is what they claim to base their faith on. (I'm with the Catholics on that one--reading the Bible is probably the best way to get someone to reject the beliefs of conventional Christianity!) I find it hard to believe that so many people read that big collection of stuff and arrive at largely the same ideas on which passages to take as truth and which to ignore. I think the fact that all members of a certain congregation hold more or less the same creeds is somehow about the indoctrination/teaching structure (passed through parents or ministers or whatever).

Anyway, none of this seems to hold up because I know people of faith whose faith was a rejection of what they were brought up with. And these people have the same ability to be shrewd and rational in most other areas of their lives.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

No, it only assumes that the existence of a deity is possible (i.e. the probability is greater than 0%).

No. It asserts a numerical probability.

But it doesn't say anything about multiple universes.

It says there is one God in a million. A million whats?

You still don't understand what a probability is.

No, you're simply assuming a premise. You are free to reject that premise if you like, but that's another matter altogether.

I've said this several times now--it's not a matter of whether I accept or reject a premise. The problem is that the logic is circular because the conclusion is assumed in the premise.

To show you this, I pointed out that if I were to make the same argument as cj but start with the premise that the probability of the existence of God were zero (in which case I'd end up with the conclusion that God does not exist) I would also be making a circular argument.

The problem of begging the question is NOT the same issue as me rejecting a premise.

But we're talking about OUR universe here, and there is no assumption that there is a god in our universe by giving the probability of a god existing a value greater than 0%.

Yes, there is that assumption. If God does not exist, the probability that God could exist is not 1 in a million. It's zero.

 

[The Atheist]

Today's rationality is tomorrow's folly. Wasn't it just a few decades ago that biologists assumed the sea-floor was pretty much barren of life?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24863421/

No.

Anyone making assumptions is automatically indulging in irrational thinking.

Nice strawman, does it come in factual?

No strawman involved, I was replying to your stated comments.

If I have your position wrong, please have another crack at explaining it. This is pretty primary school standard stuff - reality exists, 2+2=4, that kind of thing. Some things we can take for granted, and in the lack of definitive proof to the contrary, I can only continue to accept that all circles have a circumference of pi*d.

You certainly seem to be suggesting they aren't seperate.

No, that wasn't my suggestion. Rationality and facts go together like this:

If something is sufficiently factual to accept (pi*d above), then it's unreasonable not to accept it. Related, not synonymous.

But why can't belief in these things ever be rational? Please give me an actual reason and not mere hand-waving.

Ok, I can do that, no matter that it's a boring and thankless task, but first you need to explain which version of christianity you want me to find irrationality in. It's been extremely well-established that different christian cults have different beliefs - from Fred Phelps to Rowan Williams - so I won't try to generalise. You give me a version of christianity and I will point to the specific parts which involve irrational thinking.

I'm simply stating that evidence is not a requirement for reason, they certainly do seem to work better together but by no means is reason tied up and shackled to the ground by empiricism.

Of course it is!

This is what I've trying to explain ad nauseum. If something has been empirically proven**, then it's unreasonable, irrational, and bloody stupid to believe something else. You seem to be trying to imply that I'm claiming science is the basis of all knowledge, but unluckily, I'm not. It might be one day, but there's still some scope for emquiring minds yet.

Do I accept the position that gods, souls, and the afterlife are unknowable? I certainly do.

As always, you're welcome to that position, however, as I noted in a recent thread on atheism vs agnosticism, I find that view to be fence-sitting pseudo-theism and distinctly unappealing.

If you claim they are unknowable, as they must exist to be unknowable, so you may as well just have a dollar on Pascal and go to Sunday Mass.

I think you're confusing rationality with the philosophical position of rationalism.

Not confusing - the two things are the same. It may surprise you, but rationalists are quite rational and apply rationality. In terms of philosophical positions, I always refer to materialistic rationalism just in case some sneaky theist or agnostic tries to claim rationality under a banner of mysticism.

"1"

Mate, you've made what can only be the equal shortest post ever, but it made me laugh the most today.

Brilliant!

The only rational theist is a dead one.

Not as good, but still good, and on a couple of levels, too.

Great thread, this one.


** proven, of course, in the loosest sense of the word, e.g. proven like the reason for collapse of WTC7 has been proven - to a state where only a congenital gibbering idiot would question it. Pythagoras' hippopotamus, say.

 

[RandFan]

Please forgive the edits. I've chopped it up and it's out of order but I assure you I read all of it.

I appreciate getting a bit of your conversion story, but that's not really what I'm asking about.

...

So what causes the gearshift in thinking?

I first thought that maybe it's about your upbringing. If your parents or other adult authority figures taught you the beliefs, you just accept those beliefs on that say-so.

I'm not so sure that my story is not what you are asking about. I was a true believer. Stout and staunch. I went on my mission with gusto. I told people I knew the truth. I knew it.

I'm talking about a believer (not struggling with his belief or anything). I usually think in terms of most of my family members (Catholics). They'll mostly admit that there's no logical basis for their faith. It's faith. (It's not really a blind spot, the way I might have a stupid belief because I'm unaware of a bias I have or some such--they KNOW their belief is a matter of faith. Some believers are even proud that their belief is based on faith and not on evidence.)

Yeah, you are talking about me.

Hey, I don't know what goes on inside of people's heads for a fact. I can only surmise based on my own experience. I was always the youth leader. The first up for church. The first to raise his or her hand to volunteer. My siblings were all inactive but not me. My friends fell inactive but not me. I saved my money to pay for my mission. I gave up two years of my life for the mission.

Dennett says that most people believe in belief. It's likely a bit more complicated than that but I think it is largely true. There were times when I had zero doubts. There were times though that I put on a brave front because I believed that it was important to believe.

The best way I can answer your question is to ask why I shifted gears.

Sorry if I don't fit your model but I gotta be honest with you, I don't think it is likely that your model exists. My reading and anecdotal research is that most people who consider themselves true believers without blind spots are just like I was.

But I could be wrong. That's just my perception of it.

 

[articulett]

I share your observations, Joe,-- I think that when people shift faiths... they still believe in the meme that you can "feel" the truth. That happened with me, as I let go of Catholicism-- New Agey beliefs felt true and filled the void for a while... they made more sense to me that my own religion.

It took a while to understand that faith, itself, was very bad way to know anything. In fact, I now think of it as a recipe for fooling yourself and an obstruction from learning actual facts and better explanations.

 

[articulett]

As Dennett says, it's "belief in belief"-- this idea that faith is a virtue and that you can "feel" truths via some "inner knowingness".

You can feel feelings--not truths.

 

[qayak]

Some things we can take for granted, and in the lack of definitive proof to the contrary, I can only continue to accept that all circles have a circumference of pi*d . . .

. . . If something is sufficiently factual to accept (pi*d above), then it's unreasonable not to accept it. Related, not synonymous.

Just a nitpick as I agree 100% with the reasoning in your post and what you are saying but I think there is no doubt about the circumfeence of a circle equaling pi X d. Mathematics is one discipline where there are absolute proofs.

Not that this changes your argument beyond the fact that it raises the level of unreasonable for anyone not accepting it.