Can theists be rational?

I didn't state that 'a convenient fiction' wasn't a rational approach.

Linda

I'm sorry, I thought you had. In fact, this was so confusing to me, I had to go back to the original thread to check what I thought you had said. (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=130908&page=5)

When I asked (in post 177)
Do you see maintaining theistic beliefs as a convenient fiction to be rational?
You responded (in post 178) Not personally.

Now you seem to be saying that you do find it to be a rational approach. Have you changed your mind or am I missing some nuance of meaning. Either way, could you elucidate your opinion for me.
 
It's disproven in the sense that the claims made for the god she/he is referring to (I'm guessing) have been disproven.

Are you saying that the above represents a specific god, and that there are further claims made about that god that have been disproven? Which god does that represent and which claims have been disproven? If it's the case that claims made about the god have been disproven, then I would agree that those claims are irrational (although belief in the god that might not include those claims may not necessarily be irrational).

It depends upon how/why you arrived at your opinion.

If that is the case, then it also holds for all beliefs. I'm still not convinced that an opinion wouldn't be irrational if it was incoherent or inconsistent with reality regardless of how/why it was arrived at.

-Bri
 
Last edited:
This is pretty much just restating your views on this but do you have any evidence to support it?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...inkpos=4&log$=relatedreviews&logdbfrom=pubmed

We reviewed data from approximately 80 published and unpublished studies that examined the association of religious affiliation or involvement with depressive symptoms or depressive disorder. In these studies, religion was measured as religious affiliation; general religious involvement; organizational religious involvement; prayer or private religious involvement; religious salience and motivation; or religious beliefs. People from some religious affiliations appear to have an elevated risk for depressive symptoms and depressive disorder, and people with no religious affiliation are at an elevated risk in comparison with people who are religiously affiliated. People with high levels of general religious involvement, organizational religious involvement, religious salience, and intrinsic religious motivation are at reduced risk for depressive symptoms and depressive disorders. Private religious activity and particular religious beliefs appear to bear no reliable relationship with depression. People with high levels of extrinsic religious motivation are at increased risk for depressive symptoms. Although these associations tend to be consistent, they are modest and are substantially reduced in multivariate research. Longitudinal research is sparse, but suggests that some forms of religious involvement might exert a protective effect against the incidence and persistence of depressive symptoms or disorders. The existing research is sufficient to encourage further investigation of the associations of religion with depressive symptoms and disorder. Religion should be measured with higher methodological standards than those that have been accepted in survey research to date.

What do you base this opinion on?

Praying provides temporary comfort. People who frequently pray feel bad if they don't pray, but after a while the guilt goes away.

But no one has claimed this.

:confused:

Darat said:
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.
 
Last edited:
Nice article, but I find the following two passages to be contradictory:

What many people fail to understand about this process is that the rationality of a position is not bound to the content of the position itself. Notice in the above that the conclusion that a person's belief is rational depends nowhere on what the specific conclusion is. This means that it isn't possible to assert that some particular belief or idea is necessarily rational or that some other belief or idea is necessarily irrational.

...

Such an assumption is understandable when we consider that all of the theistic belief systems they have encountered have probably been genuinely irrational...​

I interpret it as talking about atheists who assume that all theistic beliefs are irrational. It's a reasonable (based on my experience) assumption that such atheists are of the opinion that every theistic belief system they have encountered is irrational.
 
I interpret it as talking about atheists who assume that all theistic beliefs are irrational. It's a reasonable (based on my experience) assumption that such atheists are of the opinion that every theistic belief system they have encountered is irrational.

So you think the author is saying that the assumption is understandable because atheists are of the (incorrect) opinion that every theistic belief system they have encountered is irrational? It's certainly not worded that way. The phrasing "when we consider that all of the theistic belief systems they have encountered have probably been genuinely irrational" makes it sound as though the author is stating that all of the theistic belief systems that atheists have encountered are probably genuinely irrational, which in light of his prior comments would only make sense if he knew how every theist every atheist ever encountered arrived at their beliefs.

-Bri
 
Last edited:
Thanks. I'm in violent agreement with the author of that essay!

I would be if we were talking about the beliefs of people before widespread education and access to information, or in a third world country today.

But there is no excuse for someone capable of turning on a computer and logging onto an internet forum to not be aware of objective evidence which makes all but the "hands-off" type of God beliefs (i.e. Deistic) irrational.
 
So you think the author is saying that the assumption is understandable because atheists are of the (incorrect) opinion that every theistic belief system they have encountered is irrational?
Yes.

It's certainly not worded that way. The phrasing "when we consider that all of the theistic belief systems they have encountered have probably been genuinely irrational" makes it sound as though the author is stating that all of the theistic belief systems that atheists have encountered are probably genuinely irrational, which in light of his prior comments would only make sense if he knew how every theist every atheist ever encountered arrived at their beliefs.

-Bri

Yes, it's not really worded that way. The entire tone of the article is more like that of the first passage you quoted than the second that we are discussing now. I'm inclined to read it with that in mind and interpret it in the way I have so as not as that eliminates the contradiction you pointed out.
 
So you think the author is saying that the assumption is understandable because atheists are of the (incorrect) opinion that every theistic belief system they have encountered is irrational?
Yes.

It's certainly not worded that way. The phrasing "when we consider that all of the theistic belief systems they have encountered have probably been genuinely irrational" makes it sound as though the author is stating that all of the theistic belief systems that atheists have encountered are probably genuinely irrational, which in light of his prior comments would only make sense if he knew how every theist every atheist ever encountered arrived at their beliefs.

-Bri

Yes, it's not really worded that way. The entire tone of the article is more like that of the first passage you quoted than the second that we are discussing now. I'm inclined to read it with that in mind and interpret it in the way I have because that eliminates the contradiction you pointed out and allows it to be consistent with the rest of the essay.
 
Now you seem to be saying that you do find it to be a rational approach. Have you changed your mind or am I missing some nuance of meaning. Either way, could you elucidate your opinion for me.

The idea of convenient fictions may be rational depending upon the individual reasons for why/how. This particular convenient fiction (theism) isn't rational in my case. It could be in other cases.

Linda
 
Are you saying that the above represents a specific god, and that there are further claims made about that god that have been disproven? Which god does that represent and which claims have been disproven? If it's the case that claims made about the god have been disproven, then I would agree that those claims are irrational (although belief in the god that might not include those claims may not necessarily be irrational).

I think she/he was referring to the Old Testament God. Things like the creation of the earth, the movement of the heavens, the presence and variety of living creatures, have been shown to be lawful - i.e. they are of the natural, rather than supernatural realm.

If that is the case, then it also holds for all beliefs. I'm still not convinced that an opinion wouldn't be irrational if it was incoherent or inconsistent with reality regardless of how/why it was arrived at.

-Bri

I would consider an opinion that was incoherent or inconsistent with reality to be irrational. That seems to be what both of us said earlier. What are you getting at that I'm missing?

Linda
 
The idea of convenient fictions may be rational depending upon the individual reasons for why/how. This particular convenient fiction (theism) isn't rational in my case. It could be in other cases.

Linda

Okay. Thanks, that explains it.
 
I think she/he was referring to the Old Testament God. Things like the creation of the earth, the movement of the heavens, the presence and variety of living creatures, have been shown to be lawful - i.e. they are of the natural, rather than supernatural realm.

You'd have to give specific examples I suppose in order to determine if they are incoherent or inconsistent with reality. The god in the description, however, was not necessarily incoherent or inconsistent with reality, nor does it sound like a description used by anyone I know who believes in the God of the Old Testament.

I would consider an opinion that was incoherent or inconsistent with reality to be irrational. That seems to be what both of us said earlier. What are you getting at that I'm missing?

You said "it depends upon how/why you arrived at your opinion" in the post to which I was responding. I was trying to clarify whether you agree with the article that "evaluating the rationality of a belief requires evaluating the methodology of that belief rather than the specifics of the belief itself" or whether you thought that a belief might be irrational regardless of how/why it was arrived at.

-Bri
 
Last edited:
You'd have to give specific examples I suppose in order to determine if they are incoherent or inconsistent with reality.

Like the earth was created in six days and is 6000 years old? :)

The god in the description, however, was not necessarily incoherent or inconsistent with reality, nor does it sound like a description used by anyone I know who believes in the God of the Old Testimate.

I agree - I just took it as a rant from gentlehorse.

You said "it depends upon how/why you arrived at your opinion" in the post to which I was responding. I was trying to clarify whether you agree with the article that "evaluating the rationality of a belief requires evaluating the methodology of that belief rather than the specifics of the belief itself" or whether you thought that a belief might be irrational regardless of how/why it was arrived at.

-Bri

Okay, that makes sense. I think beliefs can be irrational regardless, if only because they cannot be arrived at through any rational means.

Linda
 
Like the earth was created in six days and is 6000 years old? :)

Although there is evidence against it, it's possible that the earth was created in 6 days 6000 years ago, so it's not necessarily incoherent or inconsistent with reality. There are also those who believe in the God of the Old Testament who don't believe that the earth was created in 6 days and/or 6000 years ago (they presumably read those passages in the Old Testament less literally).

Okay, that makes sense. I think beliefs can be irrational regardless, if only because they cannot be arrived at through any rational means.

I tend to agree.

-Bri
 
Last edited:
Although there is evidence against it, it's possible that the earth was created in 6 days 6000 years ago, so it's not necessarily incoherent or inconsistent with reality.

Then I don't understand what you consider incoherent or inconsistent with reality.

There are also those who believe in the God of the Old Testament who don't believe that the earth was created in 6 days and/or 6000 years ago (they presumably read those passages in the Old Testament less literally).

Yes. It is my understanding that that would describe the bulk of Theists who believe in that particular god.

Linda
 
Then I don't understand what you consider incoherent or inconsistent with reality.

Incoherent would mean self-contradictory. I think we can agree that the belief that the earth was created in 6 days 6000 years ago doesn't contradict itself.

Inconsistent with reality would mean contradictory with other known facts. The earth could have been created by an omnipotent being 6000 years ago in exactly the same state that scientific evidence shows it to have been in 6000 years ago.

Without knowing more about the beliefs that the earth was created in 6 days and that the earth is 6000 years old, they aren't necessarily incoherent or inconsistent with reality.

-Bri
 
Last edited:
Incoherent would mean self-contradictory. I think we can agree that the belief that the earth was created in 6 days 6000 years ago doesn't contradict itself.

Ah, I was mostly thinking of inconsistent with reality.

Incoherent could be something like the two different stories of the origin of humankind.

Inconsistent with reality would mean contradictory with other known facts. The earth could have been created by an omnipotent being 6000 years ago in exactly the same state that scientific evidence shows it to have been in 6000 years ago.

Then it's rather a pointless criteria, isn't it? Nothing would fail.

Linda
 
Yes, at what point does it become irrational...

We could be brains in vats with a our world and memories created to look old and our material world to look real.

If it's irrational to believe that sprites put ideas in your heads or that demons are the cause of mental aberrations then it's irrational to believe that an invisible all knowing something or other created the universe and let some people in on this secret through some unverifiable means.

If believing in body thetans that need to be cleared via e-meters is irrational, then believing that an "faith" in an unbelievable story will lead to "salvation" is also irrational.

It's not irrational for a child to believe such any more than it is irrational for a kid to believe in Santa-- the people they trust have told them these stories are "the truth"--

But to continue to engage in magical thinking beyond childhood is irrational... it's not wrong or bad and may be useful or "necessary" or "comforting"-- but it's not rational.
 

Back
Top Bottom