Can theists be rational?

[rocketdodger]

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.

snap

 

[SirPhilip]

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.

I can't imagine how frustrating that must be..

 

[Roboramma]

I agree with linda. The point is that one doesn't have to think that the conclusion "there is a god" is a rational conclusion based on evidence, only that, rationally, one is better off holding that particular belief than not.

I can see that for some people they would rather believe in god than not. Thus, convincing themselves of the existence of god is the most rational course of action. If they are able to do so, then they did so rationally.

 

[Darat]

I think the question that underlies this is the more interesting question and that is "Are humans rational?"

From the evidence I would say that we are not although we do seem capable, sometimes, of using rationality to achieve an irrational goal!

 

[fls]

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

What about holding beliefs that are disproven? The god that gentlehorse describes, for example.

Intelligent life existing outside of our solar system seems reasonably possible and certainly hasn't been disproven. That gods don't exist seems reasonably possible and hasn't been disproven.

Linda

 

[fls]

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.

I was thinking of an approach that was more than internally consistent - something that also had external validity (i.e. takes into account insufficient data, uses well-formed predicates, makes reference to reality, etc.).

Linda

 

[fls]

According to the linked article:

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?

If that is true for a particular individual and if maximizing happiness is what they value.

Linda

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

How do theists rationalise the action or inaction of their particular sky daddy or daddies with respect to "acts of God", such as tsunamis and earthquakes, which kill thousands of people?

In general, assessment of objective evidence would lead a rational person to believe if a theistic God did exist it most certainly does *not* love or care for us and that humans are its battered and abused children.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

If that is true for a particular individual and if maximizing happiness is what they value.

Linda

Happiness and contentment comes from achieving goals, not pointless praying.

 

[Darat]

Happiness and contentment comes from achieving goals, not pointless praying.

Yet there is plenty of evidence that for some people their praying is not considered pointless and they would attribute their happiness and contentment to the "pointless praying". For example many religious orders of nuns.

 

[fls]

How do theists rationalise the action or inaction of their particular sky daddy or daddies with respect to "acts of God", such as tsunamis and earthquakes, which kill thousands of people?

I suspect by this...

In general, assessment of objective evidence would lead a rational person to believe if a theistic God did exist it most certainly does *not* love or care for us...

Linda

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Yet there is plenty of evidence that for some people their praying is not considered pointless and they would attribute their happiness and contentment to the "pointless praying". For example many religious orders of nuns.

And they would be deluding themselves. Praying doesn't provide food in their mouths, a roof over their heads or assist in the achievement of any other meaningful goal in life.

Nuns do a lot more than just pray all day.

 

[Darat]

How do theists rationalise the action or inaction of their particular sky daddy or daddies with respect to "acts of God", such as tsunamis and earthquakes, which kill thousands of people?

In general, assessment of objective evidence would lead a rational person to believe if a theistic God did exist it most certainly does *not* love or care for us and that humans are its battered and abused children.

That would depend on your starting premise - which is where all appeals to "rationality" tend to fall down when dealing with religious ideas. For instance if you start with the premise of "God loves us" many people have ,over thousands of years, come up with rational reasons why terrible things happen despite there being a god that loves us.

 

[Darat]

And they would be deluding themselves.

...snip...

Do you mean that they are not happy and content despite claiming that they are? Or that their act of praying has no effect on whether they are happy or not? In either case can you support that view?

Praying doesn't provide food in their mouths, a roof over their heads or assist in the achievement of any other meaningful goal in life.

...snip...

This seems to be a non-sequitur?

Nuns do a lot more than just pray all day.

That depends very much on the particular order.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I suspect by this...



Linda

Then it would not match any definition of a theistic God I know of.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Do you mean that they are not happy and content despite claiming that they are? Or that their act of praying has no effect on whether they are happy or not?

The latter.

In either case can you support that view?

Charity work makes people happy whether they pray or not. More generally, work, hobbies, socialising and having friends makes people happy whether they pray or not.

This seems to be a non-sequitur?

Prayer is just a proxy for other aspects of behaviour which bring happiness and contentment.

That depends very much on the particular order.

Show me an example of an order of nuns which pray 16 hours a day all year round in isolation from each other and the rest of humanity and I'll change my mind.

 

[Damien Evans]

Then it would not match any definition of a theistic God I know of.

It might work for Satan.

 

[Darat]

...snip....

Charity work makes people happy whether they pray or not. More generally, work, hobbies, socialising and having friends makes people happy whether they pray or not.

...snip...

So you maintain that whether someone prays or not will/can have no effect on whether they state they are happy or not?

...snip....

Prayer is just a proxy for other aspects of behaviour which bring happiness and contentment.

...snip...

Can you support this?

...snip....


Show me an example of an order of nuns which pray 16 hours a day all year round in isolation from each other and the rest of humanity and I'll change my mind.

What has that got to do with the price of eggs?

 

[Dymanic]

I know it probably sounds crazy, but I derive a lot of happiness and contentment from thinking rationally. At least, I think so. Maybe I'm just deluding myself.

 

[SusanB-M1]

I know it probably sounds crazy, but I derive a lot of happiness and contentment from thinking rationally. At least, I think so. Maybe I'm just deluding myself.

Neatly put. I entirely agree.