Can theists be rational?

[L The Detective]

I mean that if you start with an acceptance of atheism, then it's difficult to come up with an objective single standard for morality.

That's certainly true. But I'm not sure if having an "objective single standard" for morality is a good thing. If that means we pick one set of rules and expect everyone to follow them, then I don't think that's a good idea. If you take Christianity for example, I reject the idea that homosexuality is wrong, so if it's all or nothing, I have no choice but to pick nothing.

 

[Beth]

Well, I can at least place a subjective personal probability on that event at below 0.0000001.

Why not 50-50 ? I mean, it could be, and it could not be. That's the rationale behind the "50-50" estimate about god, whenever it's mentioned, right ?

Could it be because you already know that Middle-Earth and Conan are supposed to be made-up ? What if I told you that I know for a fact that god is made-up ? Shouldn't we look at the evidence, instead of making "subjective personal probability" pronouncements ?

Of course, when you realize there IS no evidence...

This sort of statement is, perhaps, the heart of the disagreement between many strong atheists and the more agnostic fence sitters. Evidence does exist. While I agree that it is weak evidence, being subjective and anecdotal evidence, it is evidence that the other propositions you are comparing it to do not have.

Because no sane rational person that I know of has claimed that Middle earth or the Hyborian world actually exist.

Claims make no difference. You can't substantiate a god claim without corroborating evidence.

While I agree you can't substantiate a god claim without corroborating evidence, claims do make a difference. At least they do to me. It seems to me that the claim/belief that no gods exist can't be established unless you have alternative explanations for such claims. While you can claim that all such witnesses who have provided such testimony are delusional or mistaken, that is an unfalsifiable claim itself and I do not find it sufficient to completely dismiss them. Apparently you do - hence your "no evidence" claim above.

That's one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it would be the difference between what you think of as being you (God) and a reference to the collection of various atomic particles that comprise your physical body (Universe). At least, that's how I think of Pantheism.

Lost me.

Consider the difference between a human being immediately before and after death. The physical body - the constitutient atomic particles - is essentially the same in both cases. Self-awareness and cognition is a pattern of activity that a living body engages in and stops at death. That pattern of activity is what I consider the 'soul' or 'spirit' of a person and that is what I am referring to. (Incidently, I do not believe in life after death for the individual, so I am not claiming such patterns continue after death apart from the body.) My understanding of pantheism is that the universe itself is believed to possess self-awareness and cognition and those qualities are what is different in pantheism from the definition of "universe" as more typically described; that is self-awareness and cognition are not generally assumed to be charactoristics of the universe.

Useless? I'm not so sure about that. But useless and non-existant are two different questions.

More-or-less, but when we're talking about a being who supposedly created all that is, if he's useless, then it might damn well be important to the question of his existence.

At any rate, unless you care to define how you would distinguish useful and useless in this context, I don't think there's much to discuss on it. The Atheist has another thread going about the benefits of religion separate from it's truth value if you are interested in such a discussion.

I discussed this at length in a thread with Linda. I'll try and hunt up some of those posts if you're really interested.

I would, since I discuss the 50-50 thing above.

It's the Athestist v. Agnostic:Friend of Foe thread. I think the posts you would find of interest start around post #131. Here's a link to that page:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=130908&page=4

This thread was started as an offshoot of the conversation Linda and I had.

 

[Belz...]

This sort of statement is, perhaps, the heart of the disagreement between many strong atheists and the more agnostic fence sitters. Evidence does exist. While I agree that it is weak evidence, being subjective and anecdotal evidence, it is evidence that the other propositions you are comparing it to do not have.

That's because, in my view, reality has nothing to do with what we want it to be. Whether or not there are claims to the existence of the easter bunny is not important, especially when talking about beigns that, even in principle, could not possibly be detectable.

It seems to me that the claim/belief that no gods exist can't be established unless you have alternative explanations for such claims.

I've provided at least one.

While you can claim that all such witnesses who have provided such testimony are delusional or mistaken, that is an unfalsifiable claim itself and I do not find it sufficient to completely dismiss them.

It's most certainly falsifiable. In fact, we KNOW for a fact that certain people ARE delusional. We know NOTHING about gods. That's a good starting point, if there ever was any.

My understanding of pantheism is that the universe itself is believed to possess self-awareness and cognition and those qualities are what is different in pantheism from the definition of "universe" as more typically described; that is self-awareness and cognition are not generally assumed to be charactoristics of the universe.

Okay, what is the process by which pantheism claims this consciousness would be created and maintained ?

At any rate, unless you care to define how you would distinguish useful and useless in this context, I don't think there's much to discuss on it. The Atheist has another thread going about the benefits of religion separate from it's truth value if you are interested in such a discussion.

Useless: cannot have any influence or impact on reality. The theoretical creator who makes the universe and then conveniently leaves it alone is useless, because we don't need him to explain anything.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=130908&page=4

I'll try to look it up, at some point.

 

[Beth]

That's because, in my view, reality has nothing to do with what we want it to be. Whether or not there are claims to the existence of the easter bunny is not important, especially when talking about beings that, even in principle, could not possibly be detectable.
I've provided at least one.
It's most certainly falsifiable. In fact, we KNOW for a fact that certain people ARE delusional. We know NOTHING about gods. That's a good starting point, if there ever was any.

While that does qualify as support for the proposal that all such experiences are due to the person being delusional or mistaken, it's not a falsification of the proposal. Could you tell me how you would falsify such a proposal? How could an individual who has had such an experience prove to you that they were neither mistaken or delusional about it?

Okay, what is the process by which pantheism claims this consciousness would be created and maintained ?

Sorry, but I'm not a pantheist and I'm not that familiar with their beliefs. I was merely trying to explain to you what my understanding is of their beliefs and how it differs from simply relabeling the universe as 'god'. Further, I don't think we have a very good explanation for how the phenomena we describe as our own consciousness is created, so I don't feel it's reasonable to expect much in the way of such explanations from pantheists.

Useless: cannot have any influence or impact on reality. The theoretical creator who makes the universe and then conveniently leaves it alone is useless, because we don't need him to explain anything.

Okay. I'll not argue your definition nor that such a god fits that definition. I don't agree, but I use a different definition of useful.

I'll try to look it up, at some point.

Okay.

 

[westprog]

If a police officer, in the process of attempting to eliminate the threat from a group of terrorists, accidently kills an innocent guy, is that death considered justified? Is that your question?

As far as I can tell, it could be. But I'm completely confused as to what your point is.

Linda

What if he's in a plane that is going to crash into a building with thousands of people in it? Can the plane be shot down?

 

[westprog]

That's certainly true. But I'm not sure if having an "objective single standard" for morality is a good thing. If that means we pick one set of rules and expect everyone to follow them, then I don't think that's a good idea. If you take Christianity for example, I reject the idea that homosexuality is wrong, so if it's all or nothing, I have no choice but to pick nothing.

The interesting thing there is that you reject the idea that homosexuality is wrong. Do you regard the idea that homosexuality is wrong as being actually mistaken, or is it a different choice to the one you have made?

 

[Paulhoff]

What if he's in a plane that is going to crash into a building with thousands of people in it? Can the plane be shot down?

And where does this plane go, into thin air, nobody else on the ground.

Paul

 

[westprog]

Okay, westprog...

About the simulation thing, I had a thought this morning.

You were saying that the inconsistencies in the simulation might not be spotted by people within the simulation. How about dreams ? Admitedly, the inconsistencies are more numerous and obvious (perhaps), but we can often spot them easily. So... even if, within the dream itself, it's supposed to make sense that your house is suddenly floating above Washington DC or that you're having a discussion with George Lucas back in 1977, and even if you're not exactly in the most lucid of states, you can tell these things don't make sense. And that's just you.

Billions of people, now ? As I said, it'd have to be a perfect simulation, which I don't believe in. Only reality, in principle, is perfectly consistent.

But people don't, usually, notice anything wrong with the dream while they are experiencing it, no matter how bizarre. The realisation that one is in a dream isn't due to logical inconsistencies - it's due to the nearness to waking.

We are in the dream, whatever it may be. We will construct a vision of reality that fits what we dream.

 

[WaterBreather]

I reject the idea that homosexuality is wrong, so if it's all or nothing, I have no choice but to pick nothing.

If you accept queers as being right, then you have given a claim to an objective state of the world. Any moral claim does this, if it did not, you would have no reason to convince us that you were right. By trying t convince us you are right, you are making an objective claim, regardless of your position.

As you have picked nothing, chances are that is what you'll end up as -- nothing.

 

[L The Detective]

The interesting thing there is that you reject the idea that homosexuality is wrong. Do you regard the idea that homosexuality is wrong as being actually mistaken, or is it a different choice to the one you have made?

I regard it as a harmful belief that has no logical basis. I think it likely stems from an innate disgust that people seem to have for any form of sexuality which is outside of what they consider the norm for them. It makes sense that people would have those feelings as an evolutionary leftover, but in a civilized society they are destructive and should be ignored.

If you accept ------ as being right, then you have given a claim to an objective state of the world. Any moral claim does this, if it did not, you would have no reason to convince us that you were right. By trying t convince us you are right, you are making an objective claim, regardless of your position.

Sorry, I'm having trouble trying to follow your point here. Also, your derogatory language makes you look immature... is that what you were going for?

As you have picked nothing, chances are that is what you'll end up as -- nothing.

That doesn't mean anything to me other than "I am trying to provoke you." I'm afraid that's pointless.

You seem out of place here.

 

[fls]

What if he's in a plane that is going to crash into a building with thousands of people in it? Can the plane be shot down?

I still don't understand how this distinguishes between an irrational and a rational morality.

Linda

 

[Lord Emsworth]

What if he's in a plane that is going to crash into a building with thousands of people in it? Can the plane be shot down?

Well, can it? Define "life." Define "death." Define "equivocation." Define "arbitrariness."


(MY answer is "Yes, No, Cancel" regardless of whether you use that word as referring to something existing, or not.)

 

[westprog]

I still don't understand how this distinguishes between an irrational and a rational morality.

Linda

It shows the impossibility of making the distinction.

 

[fls]

It shows the impossibility of making the distinction.

How so?

Linda

 

[kurious_kathy]

That's certainly true. But I'm not sure if having an "objective single standard" for morality is a good thing. If that means we pick one set of rules and expect everyone to follow them, then I don't think that's a good idea. If you take Christianity for example, I reject the idea that homosexuality is wrong, so if it's all or nothing, I have no choice but to pick nothing.

Why do you say you have no choice? You are making a choice to disagree with God saying homosexuality isn't sin that people need to repent of. I understand we all need to love one another but this does not mean I have to love the sin. True some of us struggle with horrible types of sin but it's better to come clean and confess we need help and forgiveness for it. God loves us all and hopes we come to this perfect place in our heart to accept not reject him.

 

[kurious_kathy]

Is that supposed to make any sense ?



There is nothing irrational about the idea that an imnipotent and all-good, perfect sky-god created a flawed universe with humans being his sole "chosen" race in a cosmos so vast as to make their existence seem meaningless, erected a set of divine laws that look suspiciously like they were written for the societies of their era, ordered the massacres of hundreds of thousands of people, including sacrifices of young virgins for his own benefit, and faked his own death on a cross to "save" humanity from sins he himself invented and promised eternal torment and suffering for ?

You think that sounds rational ?

Belz it sounds to me like you just have a problem with authority. God has the authority on earth and in heaven, now and forever. What God says goes even if you don't agree with him. It is a constant a struggle for man to try to understand God's Holiness and how he wants us to be Holy. He orignally made us to be Holy and have felowship with him but because we fallen creatures are so rebellious by nature it is a constant battle for us to agree or try to see it God's way. Does this make sense to you? I hope it does.

Please just try really hard to define what holiness means and then maybe you can start seeing God better. He loves you even when you don't love him. I just hope some here on jref will come to see the light! Jesus is the light of this world and those of us who follow him do not walk in darkness( a.k.a. spiritual darkness).

 

[Belz...]

While that does qualify as support for the proposal that all such experiences are due to the person being delusional or mistaken, it's not a falsification of the proposal. Could you tell me how you would falsify such a proposal? How could an individual who has had such an experience prove to you that they were neither mistaken or delusional about it?

Well I suppose the same question could be asked about ANY delusion. The simple fact is that people see or experience things that aren't there, sometimes. Many aren't crazy, mistaken or lying. They're just delusional. How would you go about proving or disproving that ?

 

[Belz...]

But people don't, usually, notice anything wrong with the dream while they are experiencing it, no matter how bizarre. The realisation that one is in a dream isn't due to logical inconsistencies - it's due to the nearness to waking.

This is flat-out wrong. First off, "nearness to waking" is a term you just cooked up. How do you determine if you're "near" waking up or not ?

Second, I've noticed that my dreams don't make sense without waking up for a good while later (hours, sometimes). I suspect I'm not the only person on Earth with such experiences.

And if some people, at least in some circumstances, notice the inconsistency there, you'd expect we might spot those in a simulation, to say nothing about the people who are studying the mechanics of the whole thing.

 

[Belz...]

Belz it sounds to me like you just have a problem with authority. God has the authority on earth and in heaven, now and forever.

God doesn't exist, so you'd be wrong.

What God says goes even if you don't agree with him.

So does the Easter Bunny.

It is a constant a struggle for man to try to understand God's Holiness and how he wants us to be Holy.

Which is why only 144,000 people will ever go to Heaven. I think the places are already filled. All of you good Christians are still going to Hell. Sorry.

He orignally made us to be Holy and have felowship with him but because we fallen creatures are so rebellious by nature it is a constant battle for us to agree or try to see it God's way. Does this make sense to you?

No, because the idiot MADE us that way, according to the story. How rational is it for an omniscient god to create a race, knowing full well, in advance the consequences of his actions, and then gets all mad because of it ? I say the "good" book makes god look quite the nutcase.

Please just try really hard to define what holiness means and then maybe you can start seeing God better.

Holiness is part of the religious myth. Ergo, irrelevant.

He loves you even when you don't love him.

So does the Easter Bunny.

I just hope some here on jref will come to see the light! Jesus is the light of this world and those of us who follow him do not walk in darkness( a.k.a. spiritual darkness).

I thought that was the Buddha ??

 

[fls]

Belz it sounds to me like you just have a problem with authority. God has the authority on earth and in heaven, now and forever. What God says goes even if you don't agree with him. It is a constant a struggle for man to try to understand God's Holiness and how he wants us to be Holy. He orignally made us to be Holy and have felowship with him but because we fallen creatures are so rebellious by nature it is a constant battle for us to agree or try to see it God's way. Does this make sense to you? I hope it does.

It does. God is a crappy programmer and hasn't bothered to fix the bugs.

Please just try really hard to define what holiness means and then maybe you can start seeing God better. He loves you even when you don't love him. I just hope some here on jref will come to see the light! Jesus is the light of this world and those of us who follow him do not walk in darkness( a.k.a. spiritual darkness).

Yeah, that's why us sciency types invented electric lights. Does spiritual light stop you from banging your shins when you get up in the middle of the night?

Linda