Can theists be rational?

[Paulhoff]

Sorry, but that's incorrect. You cannot extrapolate from a single data point.

So please explain how you are not doing this.

Paul

 

[Beth]

Bri, we're all saying that it's a guess. Most of us guess that life is likely. So, what is the problem?

As I understand Bri, and I think she has a valid point, the problem is not in believing that it's likely, but in doing so AND also considering all god beliefs to be irrational.

IOW, it's not that it's an irrational guess or that she believes it unlikely, but the double standard of considering one likely with no/little evidence to support that particular belief and then turning around and condemning theists as irrational for holding their particular belief because they have no/little evidence to support them. I can't recall if you were of that opinion, but certainly there are posters here who feel that way.

 

[Darat]

Which of course has nothing to do with the answer to the question "Can theists be rational?"

 

[Bri]

Really? It seems to me that there is only evidence that says that it may be a place where bones are present, but no evidence that they are actually present until they are found.

You may have a different definition of "evidence" than I have, but I didn't say that the evidence was conclusive, only compelling. They aren't looking in your backyard for a reason.

If "a good place to look" serves as evidence, that sorta destroys your argument that there is no evidence for extra-terrestrial life, since all anyone is saying is that we may be able to identify "places to look".

Other than "not on Earth" I'm not sure that SETI is identifying any specific places to look. In fact, they're not looking at all -- they're listening.

You keep bringing up the teapot in orbit around Jupiter, though. That seems to be saying "figure out where something may be and then look in a completely different spot".

No, the teapot is a comparison to what SETI does, not a comparison to what paleontologists and other scientists do. There is only evidence of intelligent life on Earth, but SETI looks for it elsewhere.

Well, what gives us the idea that there may be gods somewhere?

What gives us the idea that there may be aliens somewhere? As far as I know, nobody is looking for gods and claiming it's science.

What about "there are no dinosaur bones in Tasmania" or "there is no CPT violation"?

What about them?

Maybe you're simply demonstrating what many of us have known for a long time - Popper wasn't presenting a fixed principle.

Nobody said he was. But Popper would likely agree that searching for gods, aliens, gnomes, invisible elephants, teapots orbiting Jupiter, or anything else for which there is no evidence for the purposes of proving an unfalsifiable hypothesis which doesn't explain any observations doesn't exactly constitute "good" science.

By the way, this discussion is somewhat tangential to the topic of the thread. It came about because of the suggestion that searching for aliens has a scientific basis. You seem to be saying that any hypothesis or theory can have a scientific basis (unless you have some other criteria other than evidence, falsifiability, or explanation of observation), so I'm not sure it advances the discussion much.

-Bri

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

As I understand Bri, and I think she has a valid point, the problem is not in believing that it's likely, but in doing so AND also considering all god beliefs to be irrational.

IOW, it's not that it's an irrational guess or that she believes it unlikely, but the double standard of considering one likely with no/little evidence to support that particular belief and then turning around and condemning theists as irrational for holding their particular belief because they have no/little evidence to support them. I can't recall if you were of that opinion, but certainly there are posters here who feel that way.

That's fine. I consider the guess that there is a god to be equal to the guess that there is no god. Neither is rational nor irrational. We are faced with a choice once we look at reality, so we choose.

One of the issues is "what God?" If we discuss God as the Ground of all Being, then it is just as rational or irrational to call that God. I prefer to call it God, which miffs some folks. Others prefer not to, but since it is just a choice there is no counter-argument.

When it comes to personal gods, where the gods exist only be means of dualism, that is a different situation -- that is not rational because dualism itself is not a completely rational position. It might be correct, though. There is certainly no way to prove that it is wrong; but we must ask how we came up with the idea in the first place. It could have been a mistake that lead us to a dualistic perpective, but that again does not mean that it is wrong. It is certainly possible that there is a personal God who interacts with the world through miracle. I don't think we can call that position rational, but it may be that we are asking the wrong question to begin with.

 

[Bri]

That's what I'm trying to figure out--if I disagree. It sounds like I have room for disagreement.

Please elaborate. You don't think there's evidence that the sun will rise tomorrow?

Apparently, we didn't discuss it, and you're confusing me with someone else.

No, it was you:

You're begging the question. What is the evidence that the sun will rise tomorrow?

To which I responded:

Had it only risen once, there would be little if any compelling evidence that it will rise again, particularly without knowing the conditions by which it rose the one time. There certainly wouldn't be enough evidence to conclude that it is probable that it would rise again.

And you said:

Well, it's risen for a large number of days, sure. Great. But that's not the question. What's the evidence that it will rise tomorrow?

To which I responded:

That it's risen for a large number of successive days prior is evidence that it is likely to occur again tomorrow, particularly since we understand the conditions by which it rises and it's unlikely that those conditions will change before tomorrow.

If it had only risen one day prior, particularly if we didn't understand the conditions by which it rose in order to determine how likely those conditions will be tomorrow, there would be no compelling evidence for the belief that the sun will rise tomorrow.

The highlighted portion of what you think we agreed to, is something you can only get to one way. You need to make an assumption to do so.

I didn't say that we agreed to anything. I just said that we discussed this before and I pointed out the difference between having a single data point and not knowing the conditions by which that data point occurred, and having thousands of data points and knowing the conditions.

Regardless, before we get to that point, let's back up. Is the fact that the sun rose yesterday, evidence that it will rise tomorrow?

I assume you mean today rather than yesterday.

If today was the first day that the sun rose and without knowing that the conditions by which it rose will be the same tomorrow, then no the sun rising today would not be compelling evidence that it will rise again tomorrow.

-Bri

 

[Belz...]

Sorry, but that's incorrect. You cannot extrapolate from a single data point.

So... basically your position is that we can't extrapolate that there are other forms of life in the universe from the fact that we exist ? Is that correct ?

Of course, the problem is that once we get the second data point there is no need to extrapolate, anymore, since the question is "are there aliens ?", so I think you are purposely trying to make the subject impossible to discuss.

 

[RevDisturba]

I think theists can be as rational as anyone. However the thread is a insult. Its like asking, can secular evolutionists be rational? Or can atheists be lucid?( lucid was a therusas entry for rational).

Like I said it seems insulting.

; {>

 

[Paulhoff]

There is nothing unique about our galaxy and our sun. There is nothing unique about how the earth began. It looks the way is does now because of life, for one there would be no free oxygen without life. There is nothing unique about physics on earth; the four forces known are not different anywhere else in the universe. There is nothing unique about the elements found on earth, the signs for elements have been found in the absorption lines in the light spectrums of other stars and galaxies. We are the main intelligence on this one planet, but there are many other animals that have the potential for intelligence, but not with a body to help with developing it that intelligence. I wonder how far humans would have gotten without the hand and/or without some appendage to manipulate the world so finely. So just on these few known things why would one think that there are not more intelligent beings through-out the visible universe other then thinking that things have to be just right and/or that some so-called god had its hand in it.

Has for a so-called god, what is the proof of it. One by one the reasons to believe in one are falling away. The need is truly not there unless a person needs an answer, right now and can’t wait for the knowledge to come. And what does a so-called god answer anyway, how can it be used to farther our knowledge. It can’t, because it can only be what we what it to be and being that nothing is truly learned.

So, can a theist be rational, not when it comes to a so-called god.

Paul

 

[Beth]

That's fine. I consider the guess that there is a god to be equal to the guess that there is no god. Neither is rational nor irrational. We are faced with a choice once we look at reality, so we choose.

One of the issues is "what God?" If we discuss God as the Ground of all Being, then it is just as rational or irrational to call that God. I prefer to call it God, which miffs some folks. Others prefer not to, but since it is just a choice there is no counter-argument.

When it comes to personal gods, where the gods exist only be means of dualism, that is a different situation -- that is not rational because dualism itself is not a completely rational position. It might be correct, though. There is certainly no way to prove that it is wrong; but we must ask how we came up with the idea in the first place. It could have been a mistake that lead us to a dualistic perpective, but that again does not mean that it is wrong. It is certainly possible that there is a personal God who interacts with the world through miracle. I don't think we can call that position rational, but it may be that we are asking the wrong question to begin with.

We're pretty much in agreement then. I'm not as sure about the whole dualist/monist thing as you seem to be, but I wouldn't argue the point.

 

[Bri]

Of course it depends on context. In this case we have the context that life arose once for sure and there are plenty of stars and likely plenty of planets. The chance that one of them has life is pretty likely I believe.

Then you hold a belief without compelling evidence. We don't know the chances that one of them has intelligent life given that we don't know the conditions by which intelligent life emerges or how specific those conditions are to this planet.

We can assume anything we like. You cannot assume that it is unlikely to occur because you don't know all the conditions by which it happened the first time, though you seem to think that you can.

I do not think that you can. I've never said that you can assume that it is unlikely to occur any more than you can assume that it's likely to occur. I said that there is some evidence that it is unlikely to occur, but that evidence is far from definitive.

This is all opinion. Know one knows, I think we can all agree on that. You honestly think that you have control over others' opinions on this matter?

I completely agree, and of course I don't have control over (or even the desire to control) other's opinions on the matter. Nor do I think that either opinion is necessarily irrational. Others have suggested that certain opinions are necessarily irrational, and I'm just trying to figure out by what definition of "irrational" one opinion can be labeled necessarily irrational and another rational when there is no compelling evidence to support either one.

Read what I wrote. I did not say that we extrapolate knowledge from a single data point. I said that we can conjecture from one. We do it all the time based on analogy.

Again, I completely agree. We can conjecture on anything. I don't personally think having an opinion is necessarily irrational when there's no compelling evidence to support it (after all, if there was compelling evidence, it would be more than just an opinion). Do you disagree?

Fine. I have no problem with the statement that the conditions are unknown. That leaves us free to conjecture as we please. So what is the problem here?

It sounds like we're in agreement. The only problem I have is with the claim (which I don't think was made by you, by the way) that you can label one opinion for which there is no compelling evidence as necessarily irrational and another as rational without resorting to special pleading.

Again, you cannot use the "evidence that there was an infinitesimally small chance the intelligent life occurred here" to further the same argument in which you say that the conditions are unknown elsewhere.

You seem to be misunderstanding my argument. I'm not arguing that ET intelligent life doesn't exist. I'm just arguing that there's no compelling evidence that it does. I agree that there's also no compelling evidence that it doesn't.

-Bri

 

[RevDisturba]

OW, it's not that it's an irrational guess or that she believes it unlikely, but the double standard of considering one likely with no/little evidence to support that particular belief and then turning around and condemning theists as irrational for holding their particular belief because they have no/little evidence to support them.

I think I am going to have a lot of fun here! Who says that the theist has little evidence to support their belief systems? We have cosmological arguments which to be considered as such must be reasonable and logical. These cosmological arguments were founded by some of the greatest thinkers of all time. We have modern equivalents of those arguments supported by William Craig ThD PhD and Robert Koon PhD just to name two of many. I can think of twenty professional reasonable arguments for the existence of God that have graced the stages of universities from Berlin to Princeton.

Of course if you would of said empirical evidence that is more difficult. However in science there are accepted theory that has very little or no evdience to support them as well.

; {>

 

[RevDisturba]

here is nothing unique about our galaxy and our sun. There is nothing unique about how the earth began. It looks the way is does now because of life, for one there would be no free oxygen without life.

The earth and our galaxy may not be unique however it is a bit more special than the other extra solar planets we have discovered so far.

; {>

 

[Beth]

There is nothing unique about our galaxy and our sun. There is nothing unique about how the earth began. It looks the way is does now because of life, for one there would be no free oxygen without life. There is nothing unique about physics on earth; the four forces known are not different anywhere else in the universe.

All of this is speculation on your part. Reasonable speculation, sure, but speculation nonetheless. We look at the rest of the universe from our vantage point and ASSUME that our planet, sun and galaxy are typical of the rest. We have no way of testing whether we are unique or typical or that the four known forces behave the same here as they do elsewhere. I believe, without evidence, that our planet is likely to be unique in the same way that you and I are unique human beings. Of course, that doesn't mean we aren't typical too. Typical and unique are not mutually exclusive terms.

So, can a theist be rational, not when it comes to a so-called god.

It's wise to remember that the majority is always sane. It's one of the main ways we define sanity.

 

[Beth]

I think I am going to have a lot of fun here! Who says that the theist has little evidence to support their belief systems? We have cosmological arguments which to be considered as such must be reasonable and logical. These cosmological arguments were founded by some of the greatest thinkers of all time. We have modern equivalents of those arguments supported by William Craig ThD PhD and Robert Koon PhD just to name two of many (I can think of twenty professional reasonable arguments that have graced the stages of universities from Berlin to Princeton.

Of course if you would of said empirical evidence that is more difficult. However in science there are accepted theory that has very little or no evdience to support them as well.

; {>

Welcome to the forum! Yes, it can be a fun because there are lots of intelligent and witty people here. However, it can be quite abrasive too. If you manage to remain calm and respective of others even when they are not, you won't have any problems. Good luck.

 

[Bri]

Ichneumonwasp,

Your previous post was similar to the one before to which I replied, so I'm not going to reply to it separately. I think you were probably misunderstanding my position, so hopefully my reply cleared it up. But if there's a specific point that you think I haven't addressed please let me know.

Things are either part of the causal chain or they are not. To be part of the causal chain means that the mechanism by which a influences b is describable on a causal account. To speak of a totally different substance is to invoke something that is not part of the causal chain, so not describable. It's a fundamental issue having to do with the types of 'substance' involved.

'Magic' is not intended as a derogatory term, only as a description of the issue -- something that occurs without possible explanation. It denotes the interaction problem.

I'm familiar with the interaction problem, but have seen no sources that claims that there is no possible explanation other than "magic." The fact that we don't know a mechanism by which something that isn't material could interact with something that is material doesn't mean that no mechanism can possibly exist.

I'm also not positive that an interaction between the supernatural and the natural is necessarily the same problem, which is generally presented in the context of an immaterial mind causing a material reaction within the brain. Specifically, the principle of conservation of energy would only come into play if it's a closed system, and a supernatural being interacting with the natural world wouldn't be a closed system (nor would a mind interacting with a physical brain if you don't assume that the human body is a closed system).

-Bri

 

[RevDisturba]

Welcome to the forum! Yes, it can be a fun because there are lots of intelligent and witty people here. However, it can be quite abrasive too. If you manage to remain calm and respective of others even when they are not, you won't have any problems. Good luck.

Yes, well there is a place for being insulting or abrasive. However if things get too personal or insulting I will go on to greener pastures. Debating can be civil and interesting without being over the top abrasive and insulting. But as long as there are no double standards I can hold my own with anyone, I am a minister and non profit owner so I am in the trenches every day, thanks for the welcome Beth, I hope I can be an asset to this forum.

; {>

 

[Bri]

I'm not surprised.

Again this is simple, if no so-called god in the mix, then please explain how live and then intelligent life would not show up anywhere else in the universe.

Are you claiming that the only possible explanation for a lack of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe would be a god?

Please read the article on the Rare Earth Hypothesis. It has nothing to do with a god.

-Bri

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Then you hold a belief without compelling evidence. We don't know the chances that one of them has intelligent life given that we don't know the conditions by which intelligent life emerges or how specific those conditions are to this planet.



I do not think that you can. I've never said that you can assume that it is unlikely to occur any more than you can assume that it's likely to occur. I said that there is some evidence that it is unlikely to occur, but that evidence is far from definitive.



I completely agree, and of course I don't have control over (or even the desire to control) other's opinions on the matter. Nor do I think that either opinion is necessarily irrational. Others have suggested that certain opinions are necessarily irrational, and I'm just trying to figure out by what definition of "irrational" one opinion can be labeled necessarily irrational and another rational when there is no compelling evidence to support either one.



Again, I completely agree. We can conjecture on anything. I don't personally think having an opinion is necessarily irrational when there's no compelling evidence to support it (after all, if there was compelling evidence, it would be more than just an opinion). Do you disagree?



It sounds like we're in agreement. The only problem I have is with the claim (which I don't think was made by you, by the way) that you can label one opinion for which there is no compelling evidence as necessarily irrational and another as rational without resorting to special pleading.



You seem to be misunderstanding my argument. I'm not arguing that ET intelligent life doesn't exist. I'm just arguing that there's no compelling evidence that it does. I agree that there's also no compelling evidence that it doesn't.

-Bri

Ah, OK, got it this time.

Yes, I hold many opinions/beliefs without compelling evidence to support them. It is the nature of being human. I try to limit those beliefs to those with somewhat good evidence for support, but we are limited beings. I happen to think that there is fairly good evidence to support the idea that life exists elsewhere but no one could argue that evidence is compelling.

I'm not sure why anyone is arguing against you then. Sorry if I misunderstood.

 

[Paulhoff]

Are you claiming that the only possible explanation for a lack of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe would be a god?

Please read the article on the Rare Earth Hypothesis. It has nothing to do with a god.

-Bri

Hello, I asked if you thought that, do you think you need a so-called god for that to happen.

Paul