Can theists be rational?

fls

Penultimate Amazing
F
Joined
Jan 14, 2005
Messages
10,226
I realize that this topic has been discussed, probably ad nauseum. :)

I don't really have much to add except that I think they can. We have several examples here. I started this in order to answer Beth's question from another thread.

Beth said:
Then I'm confused about your stance again. This is the conversation sequence I'm not understanding:

Linda: I don't see atheism as the only rational outcome. For example, I think that theism can be rational, as well. It isn't belief that defines the position as rational, but rather the approach.

Ivor: What approach would that be?

Linda: Optimizing outcomes, allowing yourself to be informed by systematic observations, logical inference.

Ivor: While I can possibly see how Deistic God beliefs may remain after adopting the techniques you have described above, I cannot understand how Theistic God beliefs could be maintained.

Linda: As a convenient fiction?

Beth: Do you see maintaining theistic beliefs as a convenient fiction to be rational?

Linda: Not personally.

Could you please provide an example of what you consider to be a rational approach that leads to theistic beliefs?
Click to expand...

I think an example would be someone like Martin Gardner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Gardner#Religious_and_philosophical_interests

Linda
 
Theist can be completely rational except when it comes to their pet beliefs. Same with atheists.
 
Some believers in a omniscient, omnipotent, capricious, blood-drinking, cannibal god, who creates beings for the sole purpose of torturing them for eternity while creating others who will experience an eternal paradise (for guessing correctly), are so rational I could just ****. That's pretty darn rational, right there.
 
I'm curious as to what definition of "irrational" would make a theist irrational but wouldn't also make a strong atheist irrational, or someone who believes that intelligent life exists outside of our solar system irrational?

-Bri
 
Rationality is a property of an argument? So some theistic arguments are rational, some atheistic arguments are rational, just as some scientific papers are rational in their methodology, and some are flawed. As far as i can make out rationality simply implies internal logical coherence - so an argument can be rational - but wrong.

This most frequently seems to me to occur when there is insufficient data, or variables are ignored or unknown, or when the predicates are horribly flawed. The rest of the logic can be flawless - and the argument totally rational - but the conclusion bears no relation to reality. :(

So rationality is to my mind something that can be employed by people, regardless of their belief systems - but is not consistently done. Humans are after all subject to all kinds of irrational drives.

I'll give an example of a perfectly rational theistic argument for why one might want to believe in a god - Pascal's Wager. As a cost/benefit analysis it is sound enough (well it's not, because one can have you choose the wrong God, or have God reward atheists, etc, etc, but let's keep it simple) - it is a rational reason to believe (but I don't think any sane person would employ it!). Of couse it is NOT an argument for God's existence, in any shape or form - despite many people seeming to think it is. Still, within its premises, it is rational - yet as I suggest one would never expect anyone to actually decide to start going to Church for this reason? Well I hope not!

I'm trying to think of a rational but wrong argument - I guess Kepler's celestial mechanics. New data, and we realised the argument did not work - but it was rational. And then we can have totally meaningless rational arguments - my favourite - all wooogums are poogums, all poogums are dwirrids, so woogums are a subset of dwirrids. Sure it's rational - but meaningless as i just invented all these terms!

Dunno if that helps. I engaged on a formal debate on the Rationality of Theism over on Professor Dawkins place, and this formed part of my argument as I recall...

Of course we can use rational as well to refer to humans - but does it not just mean "capable of tought?" Dunno! Anyway always fun to talk these things through - I have begun to suspect after the Pagan Yule Easter & Christmas thread that some people just assume any argument put forward bya theist like me is inherently nonsensical. :)
cj x
 
Last edited:
gentlehorse said:
Some believers in a omniscient, omnipotent, capricious, blood-drinking, cannibal god, who creates beings for the sole purpose of torturing them for eternity while creating others who will experience an eternal paradise (for guessing correctly), are so rational I could just ****. That's pretty darn rational, right there.
Click to expand...

If the universe is the creation of a omniscient, omnipotent, capricious, blood-drinking, cannibal god, who creates beings for the sole purpose of torturing them for eternity while creating others who will experience an eternal paradise (for guessing correctly) then it might not be rational to believe in it, but it sure as *** would be a wise move. :) From a cost/benefit analysis one might want to pray to such a deity on alternate Tuesdays just to be on the safe side? :eek:

cj x
 
Rational with a big blind spot.

If, OTOH, you are asking if a rational person can rationalize their god beliefs in a rational way.... Not possible.
 
gentlehorse said:
Some believers in a omniscient, omnipotent, capricious, blood-drinking, cannibal god, who creates beings for the sole purpose of torturing them for eternity while creating others who will experience an eternal paradise (for guessing correctly), are so rational I could just ****. That's pretty darn rational, right there.
Click to expand...

Which shows the degree of your confusion.
 
fls said:
I realize that this topic has been discussed, probably ad nauseum. :)

I don't really have much to add except that I think they can. We have several examples here. I started this in order to answer Beth's question from another thread.



I think an example would be someone like Martin Gardner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Gardner#Religious_and_philosophical_interests

Linda
Click to expand...

According to the linked article:
Gardner's philosophy may be summarized as follows: There is nothing supernatural, and nothing in human reason or visible in the world to compel people to believe in God. The mystery of existence is enchanting, but a belief in The Old One comes from faith without evidence. However, with faith and prayer people can find greater happiness than without. If there is an afterlife, the loving Old One is real.
Click to expand...

Since you are suppling this as an example of a rational approach leading to a theistic stance, is it accurate to state that you find choosing to believe because "with faith and prayer people can find greater happiness than without" a rational decision?
 
cj.23 said:
If the universe is the creation of a omniscient, omnipotent, capricious, blood-drinking, cannibal god, who creates beings for the sole purpose of torturing them for eternity while creating others who will experience an eternal paradise (for guessing correctly) then it might not be rational to believe in it, but it sure as *** would be a wise move. :) From a cost/benefit analysis one might want to pray to such a deity on alternate Tuesdays just to be on the safe side? :eek:

cj x
Click to expand...
That's a lot of words for Pascal's wager, a gambit that is easily defeated by two words:
Which god?
 
skeptigirl said:
Rational with a big blind spot.

If, OTOH, you are asking if a rational person can rationalize their god beliefs in a rational way.... Not possible.
Click to expand...

just because you or I can't do it doesn't mean it's not possible, though I am curious as to how it could be so.
 
If the question is "is it possible that there is a theist who is rational about his beliefs?", then yes. There is always the possibility that there is someone walking around with definite but subjective proof for the existence of a god.

If god appeared before me every day for a year and gave me winning lottery numbers (or something equally unlikely to be a trick of the mind but harder to show to anybody) without missing once, I would accept that the vision actually was coming from god.

But on the other hand, now that I think about it, the vision could merely be coming from some intelligent creature who has the technology to do things that appear improbable or impossible to us.
 
Bri said:
I'm curious as to what definition of "irrational" would make a theist irrational but wouldn't also make a strong atheist irrational, or someone who believes that intelligent life exists outside of our solar system irrational?

-Bri
Click to expand...

I'd say the belief in one or some particular invisible immeasurable undetectable conscious entities and not the myriad of others that have been believed in, proposed, or suggested.

There is no evidence that consciousness CAN exist absent a material brain. For someone to conclude that it does AND that they know what it thinks or wants or feels or does or did-- is irrational. It's irrational whether you a Scientologist believing in Xenu and thetans or someone who believes that alien wormhole visitors are having sex with them or believing that the creator of the universe alters physics due to your telepathic desires and beliefs.

We can imagine that intelligent life exists elsewhere because we live in a universe with more stars than there are grains of sand in the world. Each of those stars is a sun with the potential to have any number of planets around them... any number of which can have a chance to evolve life similar to the way it happened here. But that is material life. We know a lot about the material world-- we have no evidence of consciousness of any sort outside of a brain and lots of evidence that humans are particular prone to invent gods, demons, fairies, and the like to control others and explain that which they don't understand.

Of course, this has all been said to you before, and it didn't sink in then either.

People can be rational about all sorts of things-- and keep a certain belief free from the skepticism they exercise to keep from believing in other woo. Your god is no more supportable than anyone else's... or thetans or demons or fairies. Or delusions or myths of reincarnation or ghosts or angels. There's no reason for a rational person to conclude that you or anyone else can really know about an invisible entity-- and lots of reason to understand why people can readily be convinced that they do. The evidence is as obvious as all those believers in woo you don't believe in.
 
skeptigirl said:
Rational with a big blind spot.

If, OTOH, you are asking if a rational person can rationalize their god beliefs in a rational way.... Not possible.
Click to expand...


Shermer points out that smart people can believe crazy things because they are just smarter about the rationalizations and loopholes they use. They've in essence, had more practice in fooling themselves. I think many of the believers here are doing exactly that myself. They don't impress me with their rationality... but I can see how the muddled semantics might seem like a good argument for whatever it is they do believe to them. Especially if repeated enough.

Theists can be rational, but I don't find them very good at engaging in rational discussions when it comes to their particularly belief. They can tell you why Scientology or Mormonism or reincarnation is unlikely to be true... but not why their own nebulous beliefs suffer from a similar flaw. They do not see the irrationality of claiming to know about an invisible immeasurable entity. If I and science and reality cannot distinguish their invisible friend from a delusion of such... why in the world do they think they have? I think it's incredibly arrogant to see all the world and history of people whom you know for certain were wrong or mislead or believed false things-- and somehow imagine that you are immune from that-- that the divine truth you've been indoctrinated with is the "true one". How can that be rational in any way? How do they distinguish their "inner knowingness" from a delusion?
 
articulett said:
Shermer points out that smart people can believe crazy things because they are just smarter about the rationalizations and loopholes they use.
Click to expand...
That's because intelligence is not wisdom, which is always forged by sincerity, shaped by equanimity, and sharpened by judgement.

How do they distinguish their "inner knowingness" from a delusion
Click to expand...
The same way I distinguish inhaling flavored smoke as being somewhat detracting from health but don't care, or you for that matter who finds solace in useless, repetitive bickering. It's a useless, irrational habit required to regulate a sense of well being.
 
gentlehorse said:
Some believers in a omniscient, omnipotent, capricious, blood-drinking, cannibal god, who creates beings for the sole purpose of torturing them for eternity while creating others who will experience an eternal paradise (for guessing correctly), are so rational I could just ****. That's pretty darn rational, right there.
Click to expand...
He's not all that bad. Tremendously irritating and monumentally asinine, but you get used to his hatred of humanity and that useless fallen angel son of his, who peace be upon him, lacks sex organs and any constructive purpose. Happy Birthday by the way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom