Can theists be rational?

[Ichneumonwasp]

CJ,

Science can address the issue of and evidence for God's existence in some ways. For instance, God could appear to us repeatedly and we could speak naturalistically of those appearances. What science cannot do is provide a mechanism by which those experiences could be explained, by definition and even with a new conception of science. If it could, then God is not supernatural (or we would be wrong in our new scientific theory).

So, it is not entirely true that science cannot address the issue of God's existence, only that it cannot explain it on a deep level.

 

[westprog]

But it still makes no difference, because the argument rests on a teleological assumption. There is no reason to suppose that this world should be the end-game.

Reality had to take some form.

That's already farther than I would go. Why would reality have to have a particular form? Or exist at all? Or have fixed laws of nature with universal application?

Trying to figure out why it took this particular form already assumes a fine-tuner (a teleology).

That is a consequence of the "why" question, certainly. It's one reason why the "why" question tends to be ruled out as valid.

 

[PixyMisa]

That's already farther than I would go. Why would reality have to have a particular form? Or exist at all? Or have fixed laws of nature with universal application?

Anthropic principle. If it were otherwise, we would not be here to wonder why.

 

[westprog]

Anthropic principle. If it were otherwise, we would not be here to wonder why.

And that begs a lot more questions. Why do there need to be people asking why? Why does there have to be anything at all?

I realise that these are not scientific questions, but I think they are valid. I don't expect to get answers, either.

 

[PixyMisa]

And that begs a lot more questions. Why do there need to be people asking why? Why does there have to be anything at all?

There doesn't. But we can't necessarily infer anything from the fact that there is.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

And that begs a lot more questions. Why do there need to be people asking why? Why does there have to be anything at all?

I realise that these are not scientific questions, but I think they are valid. I don't expect to get answers, either.

There doesn't. The fact that anyone asks the question already begs the question -- why?

There needn't be anything. There just is. That may be all we can say. All of these questions may be invalid.

 

[Beth]

There needn't be anything. There just is. That may be all we can say.

I think this concisely expresses why I consider myself agnostic. That is, indeed, all we can say.

 

[Malerin]

Then what is this?

I said I was unlcear. What you quoted is better stated as the following: If "life exists" equally confirms a disjunction of two theories, and cosmologists can rationally accept one of those theories without any other evidence, theists can rationally do the same.

"Life exists" does confirm "Either God exists or a multiverse exists". Plenty of cosmologists favor "a multiverse exists", even though there is no empirical evidence that a multiverse actually exists. If a physicist can rationally choose a multiverse, a theist can rationally choose God.

Now, about that evidence you're going to present for your belief that reality is more likely atheistic than theistic...

 

[yy2bggggs]

I said I was unlcear.

And you're still being unclear. I'm not asking if cosmologists can be rational. I'm not claiming that I am rational. You, however, are going way out of your way to try to argue that theists are rational, and are giving specific arguments to analyze.

The question is, do you hold the position that there is evidence for multiverse theory?

Now, about that evidence you're going to present for your belief that reality is more likely atheistic than theistic...

Reread the post where I said I had none.

My epistemic approach is better than yours, though.

 

[articulett]

I think this concisely expresses why I consider myself agnostic. That is, indeed, all we can say.

Yeah, but you aren't similarly "agnostic" about demons, the IPU, Thetans, sprites, etc. Though, they are equal is far as the evidence is concerned.

We cannot "know" about unfalsifiable claims-- but you seem to feel good about believing in the possibility of one such unfalsifiable claim, while dismissing others.

We cannot use the fact that we exist and don't understand some things as evidence for any invisible unmeasurable entity.

 

[westprog]

There doesn't. The fact that anyone asks the question already begs the question -- why?

There needn't be anything. There just is. That may be all we can say. All of these questions may be invalid.

Or not. Who knows?

 

[biomorph]

Or not. Who knows?

Apparently it's rumoured that some,.....um,... called "theists" claim to.

I've not seen any evidence that they are right.

I 'm not sure thats a rational position they take, just there...

 

[Beth]

Yeah, but you aren't similarly "agnostic" about demons, the IPU, Thetans, sprites, etc. Though, they are equal is far as the evidence is concerned.

Actually, I am indeed similarly agnostic about demons and Thetans. The IPU is a somewhat different critter.

We cannot "know" about unfalsifiable claims-- but you seem to feel good about believing in the possibility of one such unfalsifiable claim, while dismissing others.

No, actually I don't feel that way.

We cannot use the fact that we exist and don't understand some things as evidence for any invisible unmeasurable entity.

We're in agreement on this point.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Or not. Who knows?

Yes. There are simply many answers to the fine tuner argument. One is to deny teleology. Others are as you have outlined.

But we cannot assume that the universe is devoid of a purpose just as we cannot assume that it has one.

The fine tuner argument, for a variety of reasons, moves us no closer to God. It does uncover prejudices quite nicely, though.

Ultimately, we seem to be left with two ways of understanding (finding meaning within) the world. One concerns what *is* in a physical sense -- the empirically, naturally grounded scientific method. While we can discuss God to some degree with that method, it doesn't help much, especially if we already define God as supernatural. I guess a good way of thinking about this is that it is the rational/reasoning view of God and the universe and it is necessarily limited/stunted. Think language dominant hemisphere and story-time. This method of enquiry is good at uncovering underlying assumptions, as are often carried into discussions about God -- discovering the assumptions beneath the fine tuner argument is a very good example of this. But it can never tell us how God works.

The other is, for want of a better term, symbolic or mythological and tied to our existential concerns. Think emotion/non-language dominant hemisphere/non-story-telling/holistic. We feel meaning in certain experiences and/or with certain types of accounts.

One of the problems we run into is when we confuse the later with the former. Religions largely hang out in the non-dominant hemisphere; but we don't speak with that hemisphere, we don't tell stories. When the rational/story-telling/language-dominant hemisphere tries to make sense of what the non-rational/holistic hemisphere feels, we end up with what we call religion (amongst other things, sometimes including scientific discoveries or great stories). And it probably always gets it wrong, because it always presents the 'information' in a mediated form. Fundies confuse the mythic/existential stories of their religion with physical reality; and that creates a world of hurt.

I don't see what's wrong with calling the emotive/holistic side non-rational. In a way, that is a compliment. It isn't apples. It's oranges. We are constructed with both cognitive styles. I think the important thing is not to confuse the one with the other -- one tells us about the natural world and the other tells us about our inner world. Whether or not there is some connection between our inner and the outer world is a whole other issue that we cannot use our rational mind to answer well enough.

Maybe yes, maybe no. Who knows?

 

[westprog]

Yes. There are simply many answers to the fine tuner argument. One is to deny teleology. Others are as you have outlined.

But we cannot assume that the universe is devoid of a purpose just as we cannot assume that it has one.

The fine tuner argument, for a variety of reasons, moves us no closer to God. It does uncover prejudices quite nicely, though.

I think you're 90% right - but the FT argument does at least leave the question open in a way that different data might not.

Ultimately, we seem to be left with two ways of understanding (finding meaning within) the world. One concerns what *is* in a physical sense -- the empirically, naturally grounded scientific method. While we can discuss God to some degree with that method, it doesn't help much, especially if we already define God as supernatural. I guess a good way of thinking about this is that it is the rational/reasoning view of God and the universe and it is necessarily limited/stunted. Think language dominant hemisphere and story-time. This method of enquiry is good at uncovering underlying assumptions, as are often carried into discussions about God -- discovering the assumptions beneath the fine tuner argument is a very good example of this. But it can never tell us how God works.

The other is, for want of a better term, symbolic or mythological and tied to our existential concerns. Think emotion/non-language dominant hemisphere/non-story-telling/holistic. We feel meaning in certain experiences and/or with certain types of accounts.

One of the problems we run into is when we confuse the later with the former. Religions largely hang out in the non-dominant hemisphere; but we don't speak with that hemisphere, we don't tell stories. When the rational/story-telling/language-dominant hemisphere tries to make sense of what the non-rational/holistic hemisphere feels, we end up with what we call religion (amongst other things, sometimes including scientific discoveries or great stories). And it probably always gets it wrong, because it always presents the 'information' in a mediated form. Fundies confuse the mythic/existential stories of their religion with physical reality; and that creates a world of hurt.

It's a category mistake to confuse things which are inherently mysterious and aside from science as if they were scientific truths. The fundamentalists don't get this. (Of all kinds).

I don't see what's wrong with calling the emotive/holistic side non-rational. In a way, that is a compliment. It isn't apples. It's oranges. We are constructed with both cognitive styles. I think the important thing is not to confuse the one with the other -- one tells us about the natural world and the other tells us about our inner world. Whether or not there is some connection between our inner and the outer world is a whole other issue that we cannot use our rational mind to answer well enough.

Maybe yes, maybe no. Who knows?

 

[PixyMisa]

It's a category mistake to confuse things which are inherently mysterious and aside from science as if they were scientific truths.

What are these "inherently mysterious" things of which you speak?

 

[Paulhoff]

Just working a so-called god into their universe is already irrational, and if it is a so-called god of some religionist group, it is even more irrational.

Paul

 

[Malerin]

And you're still being unclear. I'm not asking if cosmologists can be rational. I'm not claiming that I am rational. You, however, are going way out of your way to try to argue that theists are rational, and are giving specific arguments to analyze.

You're not sure of your own rationality?

The question is, do you hold the position that there is evidence for multiverse theory?

Empirical evidence? No. There is indirect evidence (life exists), but it also supports "God exists" equally well.

Reread the post where I said I had none.

So you believe reality is likely atheistic, yet you have no evidence with which to base this belief on. How is this A) any different than theism B) not a faith-based belief, and C) rational?

My epistemic approach is better than yours, though.

Sure, you believe in a reality without any evidence to support that belief and yout "espistemic approach" is better. Naturally.

 

[articulett]

What are these "inherently mysterious" things of which you speak?

How arrogant for you to think that you can "know" of these "inherently mysterious" things-- only the "faithful" can "know"!!


(pssst-- pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!)

 

[westprog]

What are these "inherently mysterious" things of which you speak?

The why questions. The how questions tend not to be mysterious, and have answers.

There might be people who will say, not wholly without justification, that the why questions aren't worth asking - but I don't think they can claim to have answers to them. Hence the mystery. The only people who don't accept the mystery are the dyed-in-the-wool fundamentalists.