Can theists be rational?

[Bri]

Not a particularly practical definition. It would have been easier to say:

irrational: belief in a god​

And be done with it.

-Bri

 

[kurious_kathy]

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.

We are not he ones with the blind spot! And I might just add that I do not think God has to be rational either, he's right, ALWAYS! Nothing irrational about that, I am just ahead of many of you in being able to admit I am a fallen girl who needs a savior to love and forgive me! I think I sound very rational. The cross only seems foolish to those who are perishing!

 

[RandFan]

Not a particularly practical definition. It would have been easier to say:

irrational: belief in a god
​

And be done with it.

I've no problem with that but it's not the discussion at hand.

 

[RandFan]

We are not he ones with the blind spot! And I might just add that I do not think God has to be rational either, he's right, ALWAYS! Nothing irrational about that...

Rational when he commanded Saul to kill the Amalekites. "both
man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep,
camel and ass" --1 Samuel 15:3

Do you really think that killing women and children and animals is rational? Why?

 

[fls]

Absolutely. Fognorps, aliens, and gods.

Okay. Then you agree that Bayes theorem provides no information as to whether or not gods exist. It's merely a matter of accepting the existence of gods a priori or not.

You'll have to read about Bayesian analysis. The argument isn't of the form you think it is.

You've just agreed that it is by agreeing with my statement at the start of this post.

It's possible that it exists. Changing the name of the virus doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. So sure, it might not be called Linda's Syndrome (if it even has a name), but it is possible that such a thing as was described in the argument exists.

The point is that the thing, whether you wish to call it a virus and I wish to call it Linda's Syndrome, doesn't exist. We know it doesn't exist, because we made it up. At the start of this post, you agreed that no matter what the conclusion is for the argument, if you know at the start that the thing doesn't exist, the conclusion is meaningless.

By the same token, the word for "god" and "alien" might be different if you live in a non-English-speaking country, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist.

And yes, depending on the values placed on the probabilities in the premise, you can arrive at a probability that it exists.

Exactly. And yet, we know that it (Linda's Syndrome) doesn't exist, so that probability cannot refer to the probability of its existence. It must refer to the probability of its existence under a particular set of contrived and artificial circumstances. Since we are not really interested in contrived and artificial circumstances, but rather are interested in reality, that probability does not help us determine the nature of reality.

You can see the article I posted earlier about fine-turned universes, but here is the general idea:

That information is irrelevant. I did not ask you the frequency of fine-tuned universes in the absence of a fine-tuner.

Linda

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Bri, I see you're really grasping at straws now and claiming that the term "rational" is undefined.

In fact, it's far easier to show that theism is an irrational belief than it is to show that these logical proofs are flawed. I suggest you read blobru's longish post on what rational means.

Or, you can go with my simpler approach--the skeptical model. If there is sufficient compelling evidence to support a claim, you provisionally (not dogmatically) accept the claim. You have to take into account all the evidence.

cj and some others here are operating under the very strange notion that believing anything that cannot be disproven is rational. That is, anything that is not impossible (by your meaning of impossible as referring only to logically contradictory things) is rational to believe in.

That makes for some wide open doors on what is "rational" to believe!

It really is possible (not internally contradictory) that the guy from Nigeria who claims to have had a royal uncle die and leave him a big pot of treasure needs your bank account number to get the money out of the country, and you could make a fortune by giving him your social security number, bank account number, etc.

Do you really think it's rational to believe the unsolicited e-mail you got and to turn over all your information?

 

[kurious_kathy]

Rational when he commanded Saul to kill the Amalekites. "both
man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep,
camel and ass" --1 Samuel 15:3

Do you really think that killing women and children and animals is rational? Why?

What I think is God is the giver of life so he has the right to decide when and how we die, can anyone fight or truly win the arguement with God? NO! the correct answer is NO! We will all surely die because of the fall of man. The good news is not everyone goes to hell, only those who deny the Lords free gift of salvation. My suggestion to everyone is to not play the fool, Satan did that and guess what happened? Remember hell was orginally created for Satan and the other demons, they are the ones behind all this torment, not God. The choice is one place or the other we either believe and serve God, or we listen to the lies of the evil one and perish. No time for games, this is life or death!

 

[RandFan]

What I think is God is the giver of life so he has the right to decide when and how we die...

Well isn't that special.

"If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to
Then He is not omnipotent.

If He is able, but not willing
Then He is malevolent.

If He is both able and willing
Then whence cometh evil?

If He is neither able nor willing
Then why call Him God?"

Your god is malevolent. In other words, he is evil. I'm glad such an evil thing does not exist.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

can anyone fight or truly win the arguement with God? NO! the correct answer is NO!

I agree.

Similarly, you can't fight or truly win the argument with leprechauns, fairies, demons, hobbits, elves, Santa Claus, Spider Man or Dr. Who.

That's because none of these things exist. The thread isn't about whether God is rational. The question is about theists.

 

[RandFan]

That's because none of these things exist. The thread isn't about whether God is rational. The question is about theists.

And "if you don't agree you're going to hell" ISN'T a valid argument. It's an appeal to emoition (fear). It's a fallacy and it's insulting to assume that we will be swayed by this fear.

What about you Cathy? Many people think you are going to hell. What if they are right?

 

[Bri]

Okay. Then you agree that Bayes theorem provides no information as to whether or not gods exist. It's merely a matter of accepting the existence of gods a priori or not.

...

You've just agreed that it is by agreeing with my statement at the start of this post.

No. What I said is that an argument using Bayes analysis, like any other argument, depends on accepting the premises. That goes for any argument, including those for Fognorps, aliens, or gods.

The point is that the thing, whether you wish to call it a virus and I wish to call it Linda's Syndrome, doesn't exist. We know it doesn't exist, because we made it up.

You know it doesn't exist because you made it up? It could exist by coincidence.

At the start of this post, you agreed that no matter what the conclusion is for the argument, if you know at the start that the thing doesn't exist, the conclusion is meaningless.

...

Exactly. And yet, we know that it (Linda's Syndrome) doesn't exist, so that probability cannot refer to the probability of its existence.

If you truly knew it didn't exist (and I'm not sure how you would know that, but if you did) then the probabilities provided in the premise would be zero, and the conclusion would be zero probability of existence. So sure, if you knew it didn't exist, the conclusion wouldn't tell you anything you didn't already know.

It must refer to the probability of its existence under a particular set of contrived and artificial circumstances. Since we are not really interested in contrived and artificial circumstances, but rather are interested in reality, that probability does not help us determine the nature of reality.

Correct. In your Fognorps example, the premises were entirely made up (I assume), so in this case the conclusion certainly doesn't help us determine the nature of reality. Does it surprise you that the conclusion is only valid if the premises are all valid?

That information is irrelevant. I did not ask you the frequency of fine-tuned universes in the absence of a fine-tuner.

The argument cj posted requires the probability of fine-tuned universes in the absence of a fine-tuner as a premise. That premise is based on actual empirical evidence. Similarly, some of the premises in an argument based on Drake's equation are based on actual empirical evidence. The problem is that in both cases, other premises are entirely speculation, which makes the conclusion speculation.

-Bri

 

[articulett]

No. In one case we'd recognize something if it existed... in the other case we can not tell a god's existence from it's nonexistence.

It has no physical, measurable, or detectable qualities. The only "qualities" it appears to have is what some homo sapiens believe it "thinks" or "did" or "does" or "feels". Yet, there is no evidence that a non-physical entity CAN do any of the above. So the only evidence you have is "belief"-- nebulous, fuzzy, semantic belief. And it that's not evidence for the woo you don't believe in, then how can it be evidence of any god? If that's not evidence that psychic powers are real, then it's not evidence of the undetectable entity you have been indoctrinated to believe in either.

If it's irrational to use that argument to claim that demons, fairies, reincarnation or astral travel are possible-- then it's irrational to use such claims to call a god possible.

We have no basis for speculating about an invisible undetectable "fine tuner" of the universe. We don't know of anything invisible or undetectable that can "fine tune". It's the equivalent of explaining a seeming miracle by invoking angels or gods or a dead relative watching over you. I mean, it makes a nice story...

But for someone to consider it a "rational" argument, it takes a certain ignorance about the physical universe as well as an indoctrination regarding some impossible beings being probable.

I don't see how there could be a god that fits anyone's nebulous definition of what a god is supposed to be, but most can readily imagine some sort of life form that others would recognize as a life form. How would you recognize the invisible pink unicorn if it jumped in front of you? See the problem...?

 

[Bri]

Bri, I see you're really grasping at straws now and claiming that the term "rational" is undefined.

Really? Show me where I claimed that the term "rational" is undefined.

In fact, it's far easier to show that theism is an irrational belief than it is to show that these logical proofs are flawed. I suggest you read blobru's longish post on what rational means.

I read blobru's excellent post when he posted it. Please show me in blobru's post where he concluded that theism is irrational. Hint:

Anyway, that's a lot of hoohah and falderal, but: can a theist be rational? Well, reasoning from the above (and assuming it rational), I have to say: "yes." With the caveat, however, that due to the higher emotional investment many forms of theism endorse and/or induce, it is often more difficult for these many theists to be rational with respect to their belief system. It is surely not an easy thing to measure; ascertaining emotional involvement seems as much psychology as philosophy; ultimately, it's up to the believer to justify to himself what reasons he has for the beliefs he holds, or whether that even matters; while those of us who believe in the value of rationality can only hope, perhaps irrationally, that it does.

Or, you can go with my simpler approach--the skeptical model. If there is sufficient compelling evidence to support a claim, you provisionally (not dogmatically) accept the claim. You have to take into account all the evidence.

That's fine, but would include beliefs such as the existence of ET intelligent life as being irrational. There is not sufficient compelling evidence to support the claim that the existence of ET intelligent life is more likely than not. There are too many missing pieces to the puzzle to make a valid conclusion.

cj and some others here are operating under the very strange notion that believing anything that cannot be disproven is rational. That is, anything that is not impossible (by your meaning of impossible as referring only to logically contradictory things) is rational to believe in.

That's because they're using a common definition of "irrational" such as "incoherent, not consistent with reality" rather than one that's made up specifically to eliminate theism.

That makes for some wide open doors on what is "rational" to believe!

Yes, it sure does! It leaves open any belief that's coherent (internally consistent) and consistent with reality (externally consistent).

It really is possible (not internally contradictory) that the guy from Nigeria who claims to have had a royal uncle die and leave him a big pot of treasure needs your bank account number to get the money out of the country, and you could make a fortune by giving him your social security number, bank account number, etc.

Yes, and it's not necessarily irrational to believe it if you have a good reason to. Perhaps you know the guy from Nigeria personally. Maybe he's your cousin and the uncle is your father, and you've called and confirmed it with other relatives.

Do you really think it's rational to believe the unsolicited e-mail you got and to turn over all your information?

That would depend on whether you had a good enough reason to believe it that you're willing to turn over your information.

-Bri

 

[fls]

No. What I said is that an argument using Bayes analysis, like any other argument, depends on accepting the premises. That goes for any argument, including those for Fognorps, aliens, or gods.

Exactly. The conclusion doesn't tell you whether the premise is true. The premises tell you whether the conclusion is true.

You know it doesn't exist because you made it up? It could exist by coincidence.

That seems pretty desparate. Coinicidence? Really?

If you truly knew it didn't exist (and I'm not sure how you would know that, but if you did) then the probabilities provided in the premise would be zero, and the conclusion would be zero probability of existence. So sure, if you knew it didn't exist, the conclusion wouldn't tell you anything you didn't already know.

Exactly.

Correct. In your Fognorps example, the premises were entirely made up (I assume), so in this case the conclusion certainly doesn't help us determine the nature of reality. Does it surprise you that the conclusion is only valid if the premises are all valid?

Not at all. But then, I'm not the one arguing that the fine-tuned universe argument tells us whether the premises are valid.

The argument cj posted requires the probability of fine-tuned universes in the absence of a fine-tuner as a premise. That premise is based on actual empirical evidence.

Right. But without knowing the probability of fine-tuned universes or of gods, that information is useless.

Linda

 

[Bri]

Rational when he commanded Saul to kill the Amalekites. "both
man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep,
camel and ass" --1 Samuel 15:3

Do you really think that killing women and children and animals is rational? Why?

If you feed the squirrels, they keep coming back. Stop feeding the squirrels!

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Exactly. The conclusion doesn't tell you whether the premise is true. The premises tell you whether the conclusion is true.

I don't recall every saying or implying otherwise.

That seems pretty desparate. Coinicidence? Really?

Are you saying that it's impossible that it exists? Impossible? Really?

Not at all. But then, I'm not the one arguing that the fine-tuned universe argument tells us whether the premises are valid.

A fine-tuned universe IS a premise of the argument cj posted.

Right. But without knowing the probability of fine-tuned universes or of gods, that information is useless.

There is evidence of a fine-tuned universe. But I agree with you that the conclusion is useless because we don't have evidence for all of the premises, making them no more than speculation. Similar in that regard to arguments of the existence of ET intelligent life.

-Bri

 

[articulett]

Really?

That's fine, but eliminates beliefs such as the existence of ET intelligent life as being rational. There is not sufficient compelling evidence to support the claim that the existence of ET intelligent life is more likely than not. There are too many missing pieces to the puzzle to make a valid conclusion.

But there is sufficient compelling evidence to conclude that extra terrestrial life is more likely than an invisible undetectable form of consciousness that some people just happen to "believe in" or imagine they "know about".

 

[fls]

I don't recall every saying or implying otherwise.

I thought you agreed that fine-tuning made it more likely that god was present?

Are you saying that it's impossible that it exists? Impossible? Really?

Yup. I really did make it up - pulled it directly out of my ass.

A fine-tuned universe IS a premise of the argument cj posted.

The claim is that God's existence is more likely because of the results of the argument.

Linda

 

[Bri]

I thought you agreed that fine-tuning made it more likely that god was present?

Only if you accept that the other premises of the argument are valid.

ETA: I think the confusion may have to do with Bayesian analysis, which involves taking a prior probability of something being true, applying additional data to it, and calculating a resulting probability of the something being true. The prior probability and the data are the premises of the argument (in this case, the data is the probability of a fine-tuned universe). The fact that one of the premises involves a probability of the existence of a god and the conclusion also involves a probability of the existence of a god doesn't make it a circular argument. The premise is the probability of a god without regard to the data (the prior probability). The conclusion is the probability of a god with regard to the data being applied (the posterior probability).

Yup. I really did make it up - pulled it directly out of my ass.

Which was it? Did you make it up, or did you pull it out of your ass? Never mind, I don't want to know.

Seriously, making it up doesn't mean that a sodium-altering virus is impossible does it? It's not impossible that you thought up something that happens to actually exist.

The claim is that God's existence is more likely because of the results of the argument.

The conclusion is that if you take into account the additional data, the existence of a god is more likely. The conclusion is based on the premises, not the other way around.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

If you feed the squirrels, they keep coming back. Stop feeding the squirrels!

Why?