Can theists be rational?

[JoeTheJuggler]

1/6 is .16666666666666666666666667
The real odds (when factoring in possibilities like atoms rearranging or God interveneing) might be .16666666666666666666666666
(actually, it's my position that the real odds are ultimately unknowable, but I don't want to derail this into radical skepticism)

So, if I don't use the word "approx" all the time, just assume it's there. A fair coin is not 50/50, no matter how fair it is because there's always the possibiltiy something weird may occur to turn it two-headed or two-tailed. A fair coin is approx. 50/50. All probabilities are approximates.

Nice attempt at distraction, but you're wrong about the "approximate" stuff. The probability is 1:6. The ratio only means that there is one possible successful outcome and 6 equally likely possible total outcomes. The probability of tails on a fair coin is 1:2--in fact, that is the definition of a "fair" coin.

But let's not derail on THAT nonsense. We've got enough nonsense already with numbers magically appearing on dice affecting probabilities some of the time but not all the time.

Now, how about my question? Is the magical spontaneous appearance of a number that is not on the die ALWAYS possible?

If it is, then the probability for getting a 3 on a regular die is not 1:6.

Again, you get this ratio by taking the number of possible successful outcomes to the number of total possible outcomes. You're saying that both those numbers are always infinite because it's possible for the die to change at any moment.

So, it this magic always possible?

Think hard about that, and then tell me the probability of getting a 3 on a standard die and the probability of getting a 3 on an otherwise-regular die that doesn't have a 3 on it.

Saying "approximate" doesn't get you out of this. If the magic business is true, then there's no reason to think the probability of getting a 3 on a regular die is even close to 1:6. It would be completely unknown.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

What's the probability that you'll roll a Q or a frog? What's the probability that you'll roll an invisible entity?

In Linda's die analogy, the answer is the same.

Assuming you've never seen a Q or a frog come up on the die in the past, you don't know whether or not it exists. The only answer to your question is, "We don't know." (This is the point she was making, I believe.)

If we have seen the Q or the frog come up in the past, then all we know is that the probability of rolling a Q or a frog is greater than zero (meaning we know the Q and the frog are on the die).

ETA: To bring it back to the form of the argument, let's say we don't know whether a Q is on the die. If you postulate that there is a one in a million chance of rolling a Q, it assumes that the Q is on the die. In fact, it assumes there is one Q for every million faces on the die--since we don't know how many faces or possible outcomes there are. If you then use that probability to argue to the conclusion that the Q is on the die, it is circular reasoning.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

ETA: To bring it back to the form of the argument, let's say we don't know whether a Q is on the die. If you postulate that there is a one in a million chance of rolling a Q, it assumes that the Q is on the die. In fact, it assumes there is one Q for every million faces on the die--since we don't know how many faces or possible outcomes there are. If you then use that probability to argue to the conclusion that the Q is on the die, it is circular reasoning.

Yes, if you assign an actual probability. One need only say that there is some possibility and cannot assign an actual probability -- that a Q is possible but no one can know what the actual chance is. That leaves it at less than Zero probability but no one has assigned a number such as one in a million.

 

[blobru]

Did you see the posts where I was trying to steer the discussion a bit off of this logic stuff?

Sorry, Joe, must've dropped off at several points in the almighty die discussion (talkin' die is death!) and missed 'em; this one, for example? --

I'd like to steer this topic back to something I find more interesting.

Let's leave off the question of whether there is a rational argument for the existence of God. Even if you think there is such a thing, you must admit that the vast majority of theists don't require one. They believe what they believe (not only the existence of their God, but all sorts of other fantastic stories about what that God has done and does now) base strictly on faith.
I have no doubt that some--even most--of these believers can and do use rational arguments in other matters.

My question is, how and why do they use these different modes of thinking? When do they know when to accept "it's a mystery" or even "my subjective experience is enough" when it's not good enough other times? (Surely everyone who uses "subjective experience" doesn't believe that Copperfield can make the Statue of Liberty actually vanish--so at some point they do use rational thinking wrt their own subjective experience.)

Each story that attaches to a god, at least where that story influences one's core beliefs about the god, is a separate Truth claim it seems to me, requiring some sort of separate justification. The more details, the more work to make a rational case. Which is why at some point the theist may want to invoke the authority of some principal as an explain-all (still needing to justify that authority of course).

With subjective experience -- usually some extraordinary apparition or communication or sign -- that leads to theism I think it's up to the theist to demonstrate the theistic explanation -- god exists! -- has been fairly weighed against all other alternative explanations for the experience. Which ain't easy.

I think my question has to do with rationality as you've eloquently described it.

My question takes the thread title not as "Can theists be rational about their belief in God?" but "How is it that theists can be rational about other things when what they claim is one of the most important things in their lives is taken on faith?"

Really, how do you believe what the minister tells you about what God wants, but manage not to fall for every Nigerian scam in your junkmail box?

Well, where theists believe in a god that gives their lives more meaning, it's hard to detach the reason from the life itself. A meaningful life is reason enough; and that meaning derives from and is identified with god. If the downside to non-belief is despair, and the only upside is an easier-to-argue-for rationality, that's not much enticement, even in cases where the theist thinks her beliefs improbable. With scams, the upside to disbelieving the scammer (avoiding very probably getting ripped off) for all but the easiest of marks trumps the downside (very improbably getting rich). That might account for how in some cases, I don't know.

Nice post.

So what is your opinion about beliefs for which there is little or no evidence, or for which the evidence doesn't clearly point one way or another? Does the rationality of one's beliefs depend at all on the strength of those beliefs, or is it always irrational to even hold a mere opinion about such beliefs until there is a preponderance of evidence?

-Bri

Hi Bri. IMO, at least as it seems to follow from what I've posted, the strength of one's beliefs should match the strength of the argument for those beliefs. If there's very weak evidence and argumentation for something, rationally, one should only believe very weakly, "tentatively", in it. And if I'm to be consistent, where one has no clear evidence either way, one should only opine, "I have no belief as the evidence doesn't point either way", then giving one's reasons for believing the evidence is stalemated -- which is a rational belief in itself. (I don't see any problem, in theory that is, with suspending judgement on balanced, contradictory claims).

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Yes, if you assign an actual probability. One need only say that there is some possibility and cannot assign an actual probability -- that a Q is possible but no one can know what the actual chance is.

I agree. That's what I've been saying almost non-stop for about 6 pages of this thread.

That leaves it at less than Zero probability

I'm not sure what you mean by "less than Zero probability". Probability can range from zero to one. But anyway. . .

but no one has assigned a number such as one in a million.

Yes indeed they have. That's what the topic of this discussion has been since around page 4.

Right here:

Here's a rational argument for God, drawen from the Cosmological Fine Tuning discussion. Using cosmologist Paul Davies' numbers for the likelihood of the universe having arisen by chance Forster & Marston (1989) set out the Bayesian analysis as follows -

Let us assume the existence of a deity is one in a million.Let us assume the chance of that deity creating the universe as is is also one in a million.

Without that numerical probability, the argument boils down to, "God is possible, therefore God is possible."

 

[RandFan]

Hi Bri. IMO, at least as it seems to follow from what I've posted, "the rationality of one's beliefs depend... on the strength of those beliefs". If there's very weak evidence and arguments for something, rationally, one should only believe very weakly, "tentatively", in it. And if I'm to be consistent, where one has no clear evidence either way, one should only opine, "I have no belief as the evidence doesn't point either way", then giving one's reasons for believing the evidence is stalemated -- which is a rational belief in itself. I don't see any problem, in theory that is, with suspending judgement on balanced, contradictory claims.

Randi has a video showing individuals at one of those healing sessions (Benny Hinn I think) where folks are told to throw their medicine on the stage. According to Randi it included digitalis, high blood pressure medicine and diabetes medicine. And the people do it. Then there are the people who neglect their children and even let them die in the name of religion. And of course there is our ever favorite cast of idiots called the legislature that pass laws exempting neglect in cases of religious healing.

Those are all examples of irrational and deadly religious thinking.

When I was growing up I knew a number of Mormons that were largely skeptical. One in particular had a great impact on me. He seemed fairly devout but he didn't buy into faith promoting rumors that are ever so popular.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Each story that attaches to a god, at least where that story influences one's core beliefs about the god, is a separate Truth claim it seems to me, requiring some sort of separate justification. The more details, the more work to make a rational case.

That reminds me of something I just read in Pratchett's Pyramids (Dios is the high priest/villain):

The crumbling scrolls of Knot said that the great orange sun was eaten every evening by
the sky goddess, What, who saved one pip in time to grow a fresh sun for next morning. And
Dios knew that this was so.

The Book of Staying in The Pit said that the sun was the Eye of Yay, toiling across the
sky each day in His endless search for his toenails.* (* Lit. 'Dhar-ret-kar-mon', or 'clipping of the
foot'. But some scholars say that it should be 'Dar-rhet-kare-mhun'. lit. 'hot-air paint stripper'.)
And Dios knew that this was so.

The secret rituals of the Smoking Mirror held that the sun was in fact a round hole in the
spinning blue soap bubble of the goddess Nesh, opening into the fiery real world beyond, and the
stars were the holes that the rain comes through. And Dios knew that this, also, was so.

Folk myth said the sun was a ball of fire which circled the world every day, and that the
world itself was carried through the everlasting void on the back of an enormous turtle. And Dios
also knew that this was so, although it gave him a bit of trouble.

Which is why at some point the theist may want to invoke the authority of some principal as an explain-all (still needing justify the authority of course).

Like "the Bible" or "the teaching authority of the Church" or even "my mom told me"?

With subjective experience -- usually some extraordinary apparition or communication or sign -- that leads to theism I think it's up to the theist to demonstrate the theistic explanation -- god exists! -- has been fairly weighed against all other alternative explanations for the experience. Which ain't easy.

I agree, and I think most who take that approach don't even consider the alternative explanations. Back to my question, why does Kthuth rely on his subjective experience without question in God matters but uses other faculties when considering his subjective experience of an optical illusion or a magic show?

Well, where theists believe in a god that gives their lives more meaning, it's hard to detach the reason from the life itself. A meaningful life is reason enough; and that meaning derives from and is identified with god. If the downside to non-belief is despair, and the only upside is an easier-to-argue- for rationality, that's not much enticement, even in cases where the theist thinks her beliefs improbable. With scams, the upside to disbelieving the scammer (avoiding very probably getting ripped off) for all but the easiest of marks trumps the downside (very improbably getting rich). That might account for how in some cases, I don't know.

Yes, that makes some sense. Though it almost sounds to me like they've got it backwards, even considering "meaningfulness" as a reason. For things that are MORE meaningful to me, I'd want to be more careful about discerning what is the truth. Here it sounds like they're more careful in avoiding Nigerian scams.

ETA: The cynical side of me thinks this way: Believing a Nigerian scam will cost you real money, but believing religious ideas can only affect the fate of your soul. . which at some level is at least less of an everyday reality. Bri can SAY he thinks it's possible for a number not on a die to come up when you roll it, but if he were in an actual game betting real money, do you think he'd behave as if it were a real possibility? People SAY their faith can heal them, but relatively few eschew actual medical treatment.

Also, while this explanation differentiates meaningful faith from faith in Nigerian scams and such, it doesn't say why this and not that when this and that are both systems for dealing with what would make life meaningful. Why does a conventional Christian scoff at "cults" or Scientology or astrology? I think we're back to the ideas I was kicking around earlier about one's upbringing, and the fact that you can only hold so many contradictory ideas at once. Or, perhaps more accurately, you can only hold one "brand" of contradictory ideas, and that "branding" is reinforced by social things (like the congregation or family or fellow cult members).

 

[RandFan]

I know it probably sounds crazy, but I derive a lot of happiness and contentment from thinking rationally. At least, I think so. Maybe I'm just deluding myself.

Nominated.

 

[blobru]

Randi has a video showing individuals at one of those healing sessions (Benny Hinn I think) where folks are told to throw their medicine on the stage. According to Randi it included digitalis, high blood pressure medicine and diabetes medicine. And the people do it. Then there are the people who neglect their children and even let them die in the name of religion. And of course there is our ever favorite cast of idiots called the legislature that pass laws exempting neglect in cases of religious healing.

Those are all examples of irrational and deadly religious thinking.

Yeah, irrationality can be lethal. It's too bad in cases like these it's so hard to argue one out of what clearly appears to be an irrational belief. Human nature to want to believe and be happy, I guess.

When I was growing up I knew a number of Mormons that were largely skeptical. One in particular had a great impact on me. He seemed fairly devout but he didn't buy into faith promoting rumors that are ever so popular.

Cool. I have a couple of church-going friends who think the Bible is ******** but keep going for the sense of community. (It's kind of funny: imagine someone praying and rolling their eyes at the same time).

I wonder what became of your largely skeptical Mormon friends?

 

[RandFan]

Cool. I have a couple of church-going friends who think the Bible is ******** but keep going for the sense of community. (It's kind of funny: imagine someone praying and rolling their eyes at the same time).

I wonder what became of your largely skeptical Mormon friends?

Good question. Some have left the church. The one guy I mentioned who was the first person to tell me what a "faith promoting rumor" was is still in the church.

My mother became quite a skeptic in her own right. She rolls her eyes at the average BS. But she still clings to Mormonism. My father first introduced me to science in a way that I really cared about it. He was a Madame Currie fan and I became one as well. He used to tell me stories of Einstein, Newton and Galileo. My father was a very good amature geologist and used to take my siblings and I out rock hunting. I remember as a young kid mixing all of the abrasive powders (corse, medium, fine) for his rock pollishing tumbler together. I figured that by doing that you could skip a lot of steps. Hey, I was just a kid. I think I got my butt whacked for that one.

Alas, my father grew to the point where our last conversation about science finished with "if it leads you away from faith then it's not worth knowing". We no longer talk about science.

 

[articulett]

My dad had one of those damn loud rock tumblers too!

But they did make pretty stones.

 

[RandFan]

My dad had one of those damn loud rock tumblers too!

But they did make pretty stones.

Yeah, and geology is real cool. Just remember that the oldest rocks are only 6 or 7 thousand years old.

 

[blobru]

That reminds me of something I just read in Pratchett's Pyramids (Dios is the high priest/villain):

Dios' say-so is good enough for me.

Like "the Bible" or "the teaching authority of the Church" or even "my mom told me"?

"my mom told me" is good enough for me.

I agree, and I think most who take that approach don't even consider the alternative explanations. Back to my question, why does Kthuth rely on his subjective experience without question in God matters but uses other faculties when considering his subjective experience of an optical illusion or a magic show?

Different investment, different stakes? -- I haven't read the thread that carefully. (sorry, Kthuth)

Yes, that makes some sense. Though it almost sounds to me like they've got it backwards, even considering "meaningfulness" as a reason. For things that are MORE meaningful to me, I'd want to be more careful about discerning what is the truth. Here it sounds like they're more careful in avoiding Nigerian scams.

But for some theists religion confers meaning -- ultimate meaning -- which gives it priority over everything, (even Nigerian e-mail scams!)

ETA: The cynical side of me thinks this way: Believing a Nigerian scam will cost you real money, but believing religious ideas can only affect the fate of your soul. . which at some level is at least less of an everyday reality. Bri can SAY he thinks it's possible for a number not on a die to come up when you roll it, but if he were in an actual game betting real money, do you think he'd behave as if it were a real possibility? People SAY their faith can heal them, but relatively few eschew actual medical treatment.

I wasn't part of that discussion. A number not on a die coming up wouldn't count as a game event (no way to bet 7 the REALLY hard way in craps). But I suppose according to QM there is some infinitessimal chance the die atoms will rearrange just then just so...

Also, while this explanation differentiates meaningful faith from faith in Nigerian scams and such, it doesn't say why this and not that when this and that are both systems for dealing with what would make life meaningful. Why does a conventional Christian scoff at "cults" or Scientology or astrology? I think we're back to the ideas I was kicking around earlier about one's upbringing, and the fact that you can only hold so many contradictory ideas at once. Or, perhaps more accurately, you can only hold one "brand" of contradictory ideas, and that "branding" is reinforced by social things (like the congregation or family or fellow cult members).

Sure, this theism as opposed to all others would be another Truth claim requiring justification.

Good question. Some have left the church. The one guy I mentioned who was the first person to tell me what a "faith promoting rumor" was is still in the church.

My mother became quite a skeptic in her own right. She rolls her eyes at the average BS. But she still clings to Mormonism. My father first introduced me to science in a way that I really cared about it. He was a Madame Currie fan and I became one as well. He used to tell me stories of Einstein, Newton and Galileo. My father was a very good amature geologist and used to take my siblings and I out rock hunting. I remember as a young kid mixing all of the abrasive powders (corse, medium, fine) for his rock pollishing tumbler together. I figured that by doing that you could skip a lot of steps. Hey, I was just a kid. I think I got my butt whacked for that one.

Alas, my father grew to the point where our last conversation about science finished with "if it leads you away from faith then it's not worth knowing". We no longer talk about science.

Ouch. That's pretty harsh. You never know though; maybe your dad will snap out of it. You did.

p.s. just looked up "faith-promoting rumor". Tricky, tricky Mormons (and they seemed like such nice young men, too).

My dad had one of those damn loud rock tumblers too!

But they did make pretty stones.

...that led you away from faith, just as RandFan's dad feared.

 

[Malerin]

Think what you want, Joe. Not my job to educate you.

 

[Darat]

Think what you want, Joe. Not my job to educate you.

Well there is nothing really for you to educate anyone about - all you have said is that we can't say anything not "logically contradictory" does not exist. According to your argument the FSM (as the deity) may exist, the tooth fairy may exist and so on. As Joe stated your argument gives you no rational way to discriminate between what is real and what isn't. And whilst that viewpoint might make for some interesting philosophical discussions if I was someone who made bets I'd bet everything I own you don't actually live as if that is true.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

ETA: Actually, since the magic makes an infinite number of non-three values possible AND makes the magical creation of additional threes possible, I guess the probability is infinity:infinity which is the same as 1 (I guess). Which means the numbers on the die before you start are completely irrelevant since you'll always get a 3--unless you make the same argument for a different number.

So, is the magic always possible, or only possible when it's convenient for your argument?

Now you're getting the idea. All posterior probabilities depend on the prior subjective assessment of what is possible. For example, in the case of a die, we typically assume a priori that the numbers on the faces will be stable and unchanging while we are conducting our experiment, thus assigning a prior probability of zero to those hypotheses we do not wish to consider.

 

[fls]

Each story that attaches to a god, at least where that story influences one's core beliefs about the god, is a separate Truth claim it seems to me, requiring some sort of separate justification. The more details, the more work to make a rational case. Which is why at some point the theist may want to invoke the authority of some principal as an explain-all (still needing to justify that authority of course).

We (humans) have a very strong tendency to think that the more details added to the story, the more likely it is to be true, when of course it's the other way around. The multitude of claims actually makes it easier to rationalize, not harder.

Linda

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

We (humans) have a very strong tendency to think that the more details added to the story, the more likely it is to be true, when of course it's the other way around. The multitude of claims actually makes it easier to rationalize, not harder.

Linda

It's a bit more complicated than that...

http://www.springerlink.com/content/x745455606wu3682/

Abstract Accuracy in the ability to detect truths and lies is important in a legal setting. It might be used as a tool in police investigations to eliminate potential suspects, to check the truthfulness of informants or to examine contradictory statements of witnesses and suspects in the same case. A consistent finding in the detection of deception literature is the truth bias: People''s accuracy at detecting truths is usually higher than their accuracy at detecting lies. The present article examines whether the existence of a truth bias depends on the type of lie. It is argued that a truth bias may occur when people judge extensive statements (e.g. elaborations), but that a lie bias may occur when people judge statements which do not provide much verbal information (e.g. denials). Fifty participants (college students) were exposed to 20 video fragments of 20 people telling elaborations (10) or denials (10). Half of the elaborations and denials were truthful, the other half were deceptive. After each fragment, the participants were asked to indicate whether the person was lying or telling the truth and how confident they were in their decision making. As predicted, with regard to elaborations a truth bias was found and with regard to denials a lie bias was found. In other words, people have difficulty in accurately judging deceptive elaborations and truthful denials. The study further revealed individual differences in participants'' confidence at detecting deceit. The more socially anxious/shy the participants reported themselves to be, the less confident they were in their ability to detect deceit. Also, the more extraverted they themselves reported tobe, the more confident they were in their ability to detect deceit. The importance of confidence on improving people''s ability to detect deceit will be discussed.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I'm not sure what you mean by "less than Zero probability". Probability can range from zero to one. But anyway. . .

Wow, that was a really stupid thing for me to say. I meant that the probability couldn't precisely reach zero if we accept the remote possibility of God's existence since we can't prove that no god exists.

I blame it on my Longhorns not taking care of business in the first half. At least I don't have to listen to OSU fans beating their chests here, though.

Without that numerical probability, the argument boils down to, "God is possible, therefore God is possible."

Yep, that pretty much covers it. The interesting question, though, I think, is this: is God, the way we often define it, even possible? I suspect that for many definitions of god that there are hidden contradictions. I still find the whole issue of logical possibility highly problematical.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Yep, that pretty much covers it. The interesting question, though, I think, is this: is God, the way we often define it, even possible? I suspect that for many definitions of god that there are hidden contradictions. I still find the whole issue of logical possibility highly problematical.

Perhaps it ties back into the idea of rational or irrational belief; there may well be definitions of god which do not contain logical contradictions and that you can make a rational argument for (whether they would be gods as defined by most religions is of course a very different question) but any god that by definition contains logical contradictions is itself irrational so any belief in such a god would be an irrational belief not matter what argument is used.