Can theists be rational?

The Atheist said:
This was pages ago, but....



Which is exactly why I asked for which version of insanity christianity you wanted me to ridicule instead of asking for "general theistic beliefs" then immediately narrowing it down afterwards.

Waste of time, really.
Click to expand...

Also pages ago.

The question raised in the OP was not "can X group of Y theists be rational" but "can theists be rational" and hence this is the question I'm interested in reviewing. Can theism be rational? Yes, in my opinion. You'll forgive me if I simply won't allow you to move the goal posts around.


The Atheist said:
No, I didn't make any assumptions, and I have specifically said at least twice that atheists share no common ground. You're making this up as you go, so I'll leave it there.
Click to expand...

I'm not making up anything as I go along I'm reviewing your statements and responding to them.
 
Kthulhut Fhtagn said:
The question raised in the OP was not "can X group of Y theists be rational" but "can theists be rational" and hence this is the question I'm interested in reviewing. Can theism be rational? Yes, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Then you should be reading other posts in this thread.

The reason I haven't bothered posting pages of answers is because Joe and RandFan and others are posting so much more meaningful stuff than I'm able to. Especially RF - he used to be a bible-thumping christian, while I've always been an atheist, having realised at age 8 or 9 that the whole thing was a bad joke.

Accordingly, I more exist to pour scorn than argue logic on the subject, and why would I bother when others are so eloquently writing the reasons why it's illogical?
 
I'm too tired having just finished working tonight to actually reply to Joe, so I'll leave that till tomorrow.

For now, for your edification, here is CJ's Wonderful Patent All Purpose All singing All Dancing Apologetic Device. Prove God (or Materialism, Atheism, Idealism, Sasquatch or ESP) in just two lines...

1. God exists
2. Both these sentences are false.

There you go, logical proof God exists. :) And you say us theists are not rational?

cj x
 
Last edited:
Bri said:
The fact that I didn't specify how I calculated the 5% probability is irrelevant. You are free to reject the premise if you like, but that's not the point.
Click to expand...
You're wrong again, Bri. You're asking me to tell you what you are assuming when you cite this 5% probability, yet you can't tell me what it means or where it comes from.

Again, irrelevant. The premise is that there is a 5% probability. Let's say it was calculated by examining the genes of the birds, and that there is a 5% probability that the two types of birds can inter-breed.
Click to expand...
Ah. . .now we're getting somewhere. What specifically does this mean? Does this mean you've found the same carotype in the two species? (Really, the chromosome question is probably more important than the genes themselves. We share most of our DNA with chimpanzees, but we can't hybridize with them because they're packaged up into chromosomes differently and we don't have the same carotype.

If the 5% figure came (somehow!) from chromosome measurements or comparisons, then stating that probability, I guess, makes some assumptions about the compatibility of the 2 species based on that.

Does the 5% mean other birds with a similar genome have produced hybrids? Where did that value come from? Really, if I don't know how it was calculated, I have no idea what it's supposed to mean.

The question is whether the statement assumes the existence of the Purple Puffing. Does it?
Click to expand...
Again, that depends on what 5% probability means. Does it mean 5% of other species in the genera have produced hybrids? As, Arthwollip (I think) correctly said, it is certainly assuming that hybrids exist. I would guess it makes other assumptions (depending on what the 5% means) about genes or maybe other members of the genus or of related genera.

I don't even know what you're intending the 5% probability to mean as a predictive value. Of every two individuals in the species that meet, 5% will produce hybrids? Or some vague overall idea that within some period of time there's a 5% probability of getting at least one hybrid? (If that's true, does it follow that doubling the time period doubles the probability up to .1?)
 
Bri said:
No, the desertcloud isn't a raincloud and doesn't fit the necessary and sufficient characteristics of a raincloud (which don't exist in this particular desert). The desertcloud takes on a completely different shape than a raincloud (it's shaped more like an inverted funnel cloud) and is formed completely differently than a raincloud. Really the only similarity between the desertcloud and the common raincloud is that they both produce precipitation.
Click to expand...
Necessary and sufficient characteristics of the class "rainclouds":

-they're clouds*
-they produce rain (or if you like "precipitation")

("clouds" is another class with its own definition which I'm not copying into here for brevity's sake)

Nope--no particular requirements about shape or how they're formed. If you add those as characteristics of the class "desertclouds" you've got this for the class "desertclouds":

-they're clouds
-they produce rain
-they are a certain specific shape
-they only occur in a certain specific location
-they're formed in one specific manner

So "desertclouds" is a subset of "rainclouds" (which is, as indicated, a subset of "clouds").

You're trying to invent something novel and unrelated to real, extant things but still keep it real (so that you're not accused of begging the question by presuming the existence of something whose existence isn't known). It's not working.

Again, when the weatherman says there's a 50% chance of rain tomorrow, even though we don't know whether or not it will rain tomorrow, we do know that rain exists.

You can't prove the existence of rain by postulating a probability that it will rain tomorrow without being circular.

FWIW, I'm not really sure, but I think weathermen arrive at the 50% figure something like this: Plug all current conditions into a model and run it many times. 50% of the time the model results in rain. Before mathematical modeling it could have been done based on historical data: pull up all instances when the current conditions existed, and you find 50% of those resulted in rain the next day. Again, the numbers aren't just pulled out of thin air (so to speak). A weatherman can tell you where they come from, and what exactly they mean.
 
cj.23 said:
For now, for your edification, here is CJ's Wonderful Patent All Purpose All singing All Dancing Apologetic Device. Prove God (or Materialism, Atheism, Idealism, Sasquatch or ESP) in just two lines...

1. God exists
2. Both these sentences are false.

There you go, logical proof God exists. :)
Click to expand...

Well. . .it's no worse than the Forster & Marsten argument.

And you say us theists are not rational?
Click to expand...
Not me. In fact, that's the conversation I keep wanting to get into. How can people who accept one thing on faith switch to being rational in other matters? They certainly do, all the time.

I saw a one panel cartoon somewhere recently where the kid was trying to work out a math problem on the chalkboard. When he was stuck, he'd written in "and then a miracle happens". The teacher says something like, "Sorry, Billy, but we only have to allow I.D. in biology."

This is a long-winded way of saying, I really haven't seen even the most religious person attempt to come up with an irrational or faith-based way of solving everyday math problems.
 
I think the brain literally learns to overlook or "not see" anything that might negate what one has come to believe. It becomes a sort of blind spot-- a "does not compute" spot. At least that is how it seems to me in looking at the beliefs I once held but now find "delusional".
 
articulett said:
I think the brain literally learns to overlook or "not see" anything that might negate what one has come to believe. It becomes a sort of blind spot-- a "does not compute" spot.
Click to expand...

Scary.

Again, we agree.

Orwell's doublethink fits perfectly.
 
Shoot... and now I've taken you off ignore; don't make me start to think you are likable.

Even my most cherished opinions appear to be open to challenge. (Damn skepticism.)
 
articulett said:
Shoot... and now I've taken you off ignore; don't make me start to think you are likable.

Even my most cherished opinions appear to be open to challenge. (Damn skepticism.)
Click to expand...

But it does prove that even when we have pre-conceptions - as we clearly have had about each other - that we're open to changing our minds.

Exactly unlike theists.

:bgrin:
 
articulett said:
I think the brain literally learns to overlook or "not see" anything that might negate what one has come to believe. It becomes a sort of blind spot-- a "does not compute" spot. At least that is how it seems to me in looking at the beliefs I once held but now find "delusional".
Click to expand...

absolutely correct I think: the problem is that once we don't believe something as well, we create new neural connections which cause us to disregard data which disconfirms that new disbelief hypothesis as well. As all beliefs are mediated by the brains complex pattern of neural connections, our new "shortcuts" are just as resistant to challenge as our old ones. Hence the problem. :)

cj x
 
Well can you give an example? What is something that someone doesn't believe in that exists... but they blind themselves too.

Maybe the feelings or motives of another? You might not believe that the neighbor is capable of being a serial killer, and you ignore the putrid stench from his home... but then the police come with the backhoe?

I think eventually reality will just make the message louder when you are in denial or disbelieve something. But when you believe something for which there is no evidence... then you never expect evidence... lack of evidence is not an intrusion... you just learn to spin evidence through confirmation bias and semantics. I agree that we can all have blind spots regarding the stuff we don't know about and all the stuff we don't "believe in"--but the blind spots can be remedied with evidence. That isn't the same for a delusion. No amount of evidence seems to be able to erase a belief that was never built on evidence in the first place... especially when one builds their world view around it or has come to feel special for believing in such. It's probably fine when it comes to feelings and opinions--but when you confuse a belief for a fact, there is no differential diagnoses between it and a delusion (or misperception) UNLESS there is evidence to support the belief.

Not believing that someone can roll a 0 doesn't affect my life at all ... just as not believing sound can travel in a vacuum. Evidence would overturn my belief. But what is there to overturn the belief of one who maintains that these things are possible? Is there any amount of evidence that can deprogram someone from a belief they've come to believe so strongly in? And why would anyone try to do so anyhow, unless there was a fear that it could lead to harm or confuse people about verifiable scientific information?
 
Last edited:
cj.23 said:
absolutely correct I think: the problem is that once we don't believe something as well, we create new neural connections which cause us to disregard data which disconfirms that new disbelief hypothesis as well. As all beliefs are mediated by the brains complex pattern of neural connections, our new "shortcuts" are just as resistant to challenge as our old ones. Hence the problem. :)

cj x
Click to expand...

The technical name for what you are describing is heuristic.

Heuristics are essential for most cognitive tasks we perform and in general save huge amounts of time and energy otherwise spent thinking, which is why we are often reluctant to dispense with them.
 
articulett said:
Well can you give an example? What is something that someone doesn't believe in that exists... but they blind themselves too.

<snip>
Click to expand...

Global warming.

Autism.

The risks and benefits associated with vaccination.

Down-wind faster than the wind wind-powered vehicles exceeding the speed of the wind.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
You're wrong again, Bri. You're asking me to tell you what you are assuming when you cite this 5% probability, yet you can't tell me what it means or where it comes from.
Click to expand...

Again, accept the premise or reject it, that's up to you. The premise is that there is a 5% probability of the existence of the Purple Puffing.

Ah. . .now we're getting somewhere. What specifically does this mean? Does this mean you've found the same carotype in the two species? (Really, the chromosome question is probably more important than the genes themselves. We share most of our DNA with chimpanzees, but we can't hybridize with them because they're packaged up into chromosomes differently and we don't have the same carotype.

If the 5% figure came (somehow!) from chromosome measurements or comparisons, then stating that probability, I guess, makes some assumptions about the compatibility of the 2 species based on that.

Does the 5% mean other birds with a similar genome have produced hybrids? Where did that value come from? Really, if I don't know how it was calculated, I have no idea what it's supposed to mean.
Click to expand...

Sure. It doesn't matter. Whatever.

You can question the 5% figure and how it was calculated all you want, but of course you know that's not the point. In case you didn't catch it, this is a hypothetical situation, so just insert any justification for the 5% that makes sense to you, or change it to a different percentage if you like. Then please answer the question.

Again, that depends on what 5% probability means. Does it mean 5% of other species in the genera have produced hybrids? As, Arthwollip (I think) correctly said, it is certainly assuming that hybrids exist. I would guess it makes other assumptions (depending on what the 5% means) about genes or maybe other members of the genus or of related genera.
Click to expand...

That's not relevant and you know it. Am I assuming the existence of the Purple Puffing? Of course it assumes that the Purple Puffing is possible (otherwise the percentage would be 0%).

I don't even know what you're intending the 5% probability to mean as a predictive value. Of every two individuals in the species that meet, 5% will produce hybrids? Or some vague overall idea that within some period of time there's a 5% probability of getting at least one hybrid? (If that's true, does it follow that doubling the time period doubles the probability up to .1?)
Click to expand...

It means that there is a 5% probability that the Purple Puffing can exist given what is known about the genes of the two types of birds.

You're using a lot of words to question the premise without actually answering the question of whether the existence of the Purple Puffing is assumed.

-Bri
 
Last edited:
Bri said:
...snip...

You're using a lot of words to question the premise without actually answering the question of whether the existence of the Purple Puffing is assumed.

-Bri
Click to expand...

Your premise assumes it does i.e. "there is a 5% probability that the Purple Puffing can exist".
 
Darat said:
Your premise assumes it does i.e. "there is a 5% probability that the Purple Puffing can exist".
Click to expand...

Are you saying that can exist and does exist are the same thing? The premise is that there's a 95% probability that the Purple Puffing doesn't exist at all.

I would agree with you if the probability was 100% that the Purple Puffing exists, but it's not.

-Bri
 
Last edited:
Bri said:
Are you saying that can exist and does exist are the same thing? The premise is that there's a 95% probability that the Purple Puffing doesn't exist at all.

...snip...
Click to expand...

And a 5% probability that it does exist therefore within your starting premise is the assumption of its existence.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom