Can theists be rational?

[articulett]

No matter how much you don't understand the magicians trick, the answer is never "it's real magic".

The same goes for the universe. And no matter how you slice it, "god" is indistinguishable from "magic". Were he to exist, he would necessarily need to be more magic than all that he is said to explain... more improbable than what he's said to have done.

 

[fls]

I'm not assuming you meant they'd violate all natural laws.

You just rejected what I saw as apparent violations of natural laws (until we learned better).

My response was that since we don't know all natural laws, we can't know whether something is an example of god violating natural law or just the thing behaving consistently with natural laws we don't know yet. So for purposes of definition, "a force that is unlawful" is insufficient.

Does "a force that is considered unlawful" help? The example you gave was of results that contradicted the formulation of a law, but rather than considering that somehow this was evidence of something unlawful, it was recognized that the law was incomplete or wrong. So it wouldn't be considered God because it wouldn't be considered unlawful, just that whatever laws governed it were unknown.

Yes--that's pretty much what I said above. And a "singularity" isn't what people mean when they talk about "God" so the vague deist definition of God (whatever first caused the universe) is insufficient since it doesn't exclude objects that it should.

Exactly. With my definition, once something is known it is excluded. Right now, since the creation of the universe is unknown, some people call the creator God. But once a natural cause is known, that natural creator won't be considered a god.

Linda

 

[articulett]

Saying "god exists" is as rational a claim as saying "magic is real", isn't it?-- for all ordinary understood definitions of those words. I know it doesn't feel that way in the minds of believers. But "factually" these statements inhabit the same realm.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I share your observations, Joe,-- I think that when people shift faiths... they still believe in the meme that you can "feel" the truth. That happened with me, as I let go of Catholicism-- New Agey beliefs felt true and filled the void for a while... they made more sense to me that my own religion.

It took a while to understand that faith, itself, was very bad way to know anything. In fact, I now think of it as a recipe for fooling yourself and an obstruction from learning actual facts and better explanations.

Yes, I understand this kind of shift.

To me that's like seeing the light. Once you understand that there's no reason to believe something based on faith, you stop doing that. I think once you really have a foundation in rational thinking, you don't go back. (In a thread asking if a skeptic could be moved by desperate circumstances to seek help from a psychic, RSL said that skeptical thinking is sort of like a vaccine that immunizes you from that way of thinking.)

I'm talking about people who are still believers, yet shift mental gears for all other aspects of their lives. They admit that their faith in good is not based on reason, but after they exercise reason in making other decisions (health care, how to spend their money, etc.) they go back to faith on the matter of God. That's the mental shifting I'm talking about--the one that constantly can go back and forth between baseless faith and rationality.

I guess it's more like Gould's NOMA stuff. One set of rules applies to certain topics, but a different set applies to another set. Again, I run headlong into my bafflement--how do they draw the line and decide what goes where? (I utterly reject NOMA, by the way.)

 

[The Atheist]

Mathematics is one discipline where there are absolute proofs.

Absolutely.

I was trying to avoid some pedant mentioning that the circumference of a circle in the eleventieth dimension is pi*amount of blue in the circle.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Exactly. With my definition, once something is known it is excluded. Right now, since the creation of the universe is unknown, some people call the creator God. But once a natural cause is known, that natural creator won't be considered a god.

Ah I see.

Still, the fact that we don't know the cause of the universe does not make it rational to leap to the God creator reason. If this is the way the term God is defined it's not just a God of the gaps, it's a God is the gaps definition. I made a similar point in that long thread about the deist "definition" of God. Historically, the deist "definition" was merely a shrinking and rejection of more conventional characteristics of God to the gaps in our knowledge.

And it doesn't fit the definition of "definition" as all the characteristics necessary and sufficient to include the object in the class and exclude all other objects.

This approach also reminds me of a conversation I had with Schlitt about finding all the trapdoors in a vanishing illusion. He said it was necessary to identify all the trapdoors (or even all the possible trapdoors) in order to reject the claim that the person vanished (in a stage magic trick). That's not skepticism. Skepticism says you need evidence commensurate with the claim to accept it. If you don't have that evidence you don't provisionally accept the claim. What he was describing was debunking.

He suggested that I'd have to identify the trapdoors (say how the illusion was done) or accept that it was a supernatural event. I disagree. I don't even think that approach is good for skepticism because it makes the burden impossibly high. Most bogus claims can't be debunked.

Similarly, I don't think it's necessary to debunk God in order to show that accepting the claim is not rational. I don't think we have to prove the natural cause of the universe in order to reject these arguments for the existence of God (an undefined term) as irrational.

ETA: And I guarantee you that if you talk to the majority of believers in any other context besides rational proofs of God's existence, they'll tell you about a God they can have a personal relationship with, one they can pray and talk to, even listen, one that intervenes constantly in the natural world, etc. and not an impersonal force or first cause.

 

[yy2bggggs]

If this is the way the term God is defined it's not just a God of the gaps, it's a God is the gaps definition.

Just as a technical point--I've seen fls's definition of supernatural quite a few times before, and love it. But I wouldn't say it's the way the term god is defined. Not everything supernatural is considered to be a deity. As near as I can tell in the most general sense, the term god refers more to a role--something like a title.

 

[RandFan]

Just as a technical point--I've seen fls's definition of supernatural quite a few times before, and love it. But I wouldn't say it's the way the term god is defined. Not everything supernatural is considered to be a deity. As near as I can tell in the most general sense, the term god refers more to a role--something like a title.

My anecdotal experience would seem to indicate that to the adherents of the three major monotheist religions (the majority of the world) the term god refers to the creator of the universe, a perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent entity.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

My anecdotal experience would seem to indicate that to the adherents of the three major monotheist religions (the majority of the world) the term god refers to the creator of the universe, a perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent entity.

And that's the kind of God that I find easy to prove is impossible to exist in our world. Which is why, I think, people who profess to believe in that God get so coy about giving a definition in the context of rational discussion.

 

[The Atheist]

Similarly, I don't think it's necessary to debunk God in order to show that accepting the claim is not rational. I don't think we have to prove the natural cause of the universe in order to reject these arguments for the existence of God (an undefined term) as irrational.

Spot on!

A series of excellent posts.

 

[articulett]

I think any form of consciousness that is "immaterial" is the equivalent of magic. It's the same as saying "sometimes magic is real, and I know when that sometimes is".

It can never be the right explanation.

I can only speak for how I was able to come to hold conflicting modes of thinking. I believed, as Dennett describes, that belief itself was a good thing-- that feelings were a way to know "higher truths". I think there was also some remnants of pascal's wager--being afraid to doubt the magic man... and we learn to rely on the lies we tell ourselves. They make us feel more confident and less out of control.

It's apparently very easy to keep a god belief so long as you don't think in terms of how "rational" it is. Believing in an invisible, undetectable (by known means) form of conscious (of any description) is the same as believing that there can be some sound in a vacuum or that there could be a real perpetual motion machine or that some magic is real.

But so long as you never examine this premise and don't think to much about what exactly you believe or why-- god can stay free from scrutiny.

I think a lot of people understand that it might not be rational to believe-- but they truly want to believe more than they want the truth. And they think there must be something to this "faith" thing since all the people they trust seem to swear by it. I just wish they didn't need to imagine me saying stuff that I'm not saying in order to keep from hearing why I find their beliefs as irrational as they find other claims of the impossible. I like it when people keep such beliefs to themselves... so long as they don't need me to believe or prop up their belief or pretend it's rational--I'm perfectly willing to let people hang on to whatever notions comfort them in times of need. I'm glad for my skeptical friends who allowed me that privilege until I was ready for questions. But I'm also glad to understand why a belief in supernatural explanations is irrational and a failure as a real explanation.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

You make it sound like the existence of God has no objective truth value.

Of course it does.

In fact, God either exists or does not. Your subjective experience does not constitute rational proof that God exists.

I don't care if convinces you individually, it still does not constitute rational proof for the existence of God. Your personal conviction does not change matters.

In other words, it cannot be that God exists for you but not for me. So "for an individual" really doesn't figure into any question of rational proof for the existence of God.

I never stated that God exists for me and not you, hell I'm an atheist. Subjective experience does have a sort of value for why people accept things and do not accept others, as I said before I'm iffy about them but if a person believes they've had a personal experience with their own set of deities and that's why they believe I don't consider it irrational at the least. What we're attempting to discuss here is belief, which you keep confusing as evidence, knowledge, truth or any combination of the three.

We all rely on subjective experience to go about our day and I don't consider the belief in gods to be any differant. I don't require you to objectively prove why your mother is worthy of your love to such a level that a third party would love her as much or more than you do and I don't claim that you don't really love her when you can't prove that she's deserving of said love in objective terms. I'm not stating subjective experiences prove the existence of gods, not by a long shot, only that I'm not going to look down on a person as irrational for stating that this is their reason for believing.

 

[RandFan]

We all rely on subjective experience to go about our day and I don't consider the belief in gods to be any differant. I don't require you to objectively prove why your mother is worthy of your love to such a level that a third party would love her as much or more than you do and I don't claim that you don't really love her when you can't prove that she's deserving of said love in objective terms. I'm not stating subjective experiences prove the existence of gods, not by a long shot, only that I'm not going to look down on a person as irrational for stating that this is their reason for believing.

Without making any judgment or comment on your position I just wanted to point out that I'm listening to an episode of The Atheist Experience talk about the subjective experience of love and how it compares to subjectively believing in god. It occured to me that there might be some reason I'm listening to it while reading your post. Perhaps it is proof of god.

Atheist Experience #550: What is Love?

 

[yy2bggggs]

My anecdotal experience would seem to indicate that to the adherents of the three major monotheist religions (the majority of the world) the term god refers to the creator of the universe, a perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent entity.

Well, sort of. That is how they typically define their god, and they do so to such an extent that their definition has its own entry in the standard dictionary. But that definition is only good for discussing their particular kind of monotheism.

But in a sense, the general term belongs to the entire English language. It has specific meanings whereby we can refer to phrases such as "Thor is the Norse god of thunder", and as English speakers, know what this means and that it is true. This sense of the term doesn't actually depend on whether or not we are Norse pagan--Christians and atheists speak the same language.

Now, when considering theism proper--such as with respect to the question: "Can theists be rational?", it is a more general sense of the term that is demanded; if, for some reason, Norse pagans could be critical thinkers, then the answer would be yes.

Furthermore, if we explore the major modern Christian viewpoints, you have the concept of the trinity. God the father (the capital G guy), in most concepts, does indeed fit the bill. But what makes him a god (little g, subject to theism proper) is worth exploring. Going further, Jesus is also god, as is the Holy Spirit, though Jesus and the Holy Spirit didn't create the universe. Satan's also supernatural, but isn't considered a god. Also, Moses could turn rods into snakes and split seas in two, but isn't a god.

The consideration with respect to this post is a sort of blend. I'm an English speaker, and being an atheist, I'm not particularly attached to specific definitions of "god". So when I have to refer to the thing people believe exists that makes them theist, I'd like a more general sense of the word--something that makes Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and Thor gods, but not Satan and Moses. Merely being supernatural doesn't do the trick, nor does creating the universe.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

No strawman involved, I was replying to your stated comments.

If I have your position wrong, please have another crack at explaining it. This is pretty primary school standard stuff - reality exists, 2+2=4, that kind of thing. Some things we can take for granted, and in the lack of definitive proof to the contrary, I can only continue to accept that all circles have a circumference of pi*d.

I don't know where you got solipsism out of the whole deal but I'll explain it like this. I certainly do believe the world exists and everyone else has the same level of conciousness as I do and we all experience one objective reality. However, I do not believe I can prove this, within an acceptable standard we can all agree on, but I believe it is so because I have no reason to consider otherwise. Agnosticism in this case would be unwarrented skepticism, the world appears as is, apply Occam's Razor there and wave those Cartesian doubts on along and you've got my position on reality. Not quite as self-evident as 2 + 2 = 4.

No, that wasn't my suggestion. Rationality and facts go together like this:

If something is sufficiently factual to accept (pi*d above), then it's unreasonable not to accept it. Related, not synonymous.

Of course it's unreasonable to refuse to accept a fact where did I state otherwise?

Ok, I can do that, no matter that it's a boring and thankless task, but first you need to explain which version of christianity you want me to find irrationality in. It's been extremely well-established that different christian cults have different beliefs - from Fred Phelps to Rowan Williams - so I won't try to generalise. You give me a version of christianity and I will point to the specific parts which involve irrational thinking.

I'm talking General Theistic belief, I'm not interested in dissecting the motivations and teaching of every sect, denomination, and cult out there.

Of course it is!

This is what I've trying to explain ad nauseum. If something has been empirically proven**, then it's unreasonable, irrational, and bloody stupid to believe something else. You seem to be trying to imply that I'm claiming science is the basis of all knowledge, but unluckily, I'm not. It might be one day, but there's still some scope for emquiring minds yet.

I agree with the former statement, but as I said reason is not shackled to empiricism. There is room to consider without resorting to inductive reasoning or empiricism, just not in all cases.

As always, you're welcome to that position, however, as I noted in a recent thread on atheism vs agnosticism, I find that view to be fence-sitting pseudo-theism and distinctly unappealing.

If you claim they are unknowable, as they must exist to be unknowable, so you may as well just have a dollar on Pascal and go to Sunday Mass.

Likewise the theists believe agnostics are pseudo-atheists.

As I mentioned in that tread, I'm speaking from an epistemological stance when I mention agnosticism. To put it simply. Do I believe the existence of gods can be proven? I don’t know. Do I believe in gods? No.

Not confusing - the two things are the same. It may surprise you, but rationalists are quite rational and apply rationality. In terms of philosophical positions, I always refer to materialistic rationalism just in case some sneaky theist or agnostic tries to claim rationality under a banner of mysticism.

Hmm; my understanding of rationalism is that is any view which prefers deductive reasoning over induction. At least from a modern usage, it doesn’t seem like philosophers at that time would have had understood the distinction.

 

[The Atheist]

Not quite as self-evident as 2 + 2 = 4.

But close enough as makes no material difference.

I'm talking General Theistic belief, I'm not interested in dissecting the motivations and teaching of every sect, denomination, and cult out there.

Ok then. A "general theistic belief" would be that a deity exists which created humankind, the universe and morality. The deity is unknown and invisible.

The alternative view is that natural explanations cover the creation of humankind, the universe and morality, as well as religion itself.

One of those choices can be achieved by reason and rationality - looking at the quality of evidence and finding that the choice is simply blind faith or not. On one side, very strong evidence suggests that religion is a human construct and messages from the deity are actually created in the mind.

On the other, we are required to accept that the deity is simultaneously watching and recording seven billion people. And for what end? To decide who goes to heaven, or how many virgins they get? And even worse, to accept the sky-daddy myth requires a denial that any of the scientifically-acceptable reasons for existence are wrong.

Nothing about religion makes any sense at all, unless you consider a god might possibly amuse itself for a few billion years watching an ant-farm turn into New York City.

It is unreasonable and irrational to ignore physical evidence and accept blind faith.

Likewise the theists believe agnostics are pseudo-atheists.

Good. Attack the bastards on all sides!

Hmm; my understanding of rationalism is that is any view which prefers deductive reasoning over induction. At least from a modern usage, it doesn’t seem like philosophers at that time would have had understood the distinction.

Doesn't matter - right is right. And usage does change. How many threads have we had on what atheism means?

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

But close enough as makes no material difference.

Well, for argument's sake, what is it that makes reality so self-evident?

Ok then. A "general theistic belief" would be that a deity exists which created humankind, the universe and morality. The deity is unknown and invisible.

So far so good.

The alternative view is that natural explanations cover the creation of humankind, the universe and morality, as well as religion itself.

I'd say this is a false dichotomy but continue.

One of those choices can be achieved by reason and rationality - looking at the quality of evidence and finding that the choice is simply blind faith or not. On one side, very strong evidence suggests that religion is a human construct and messages from the deity are actually created in the mind.

While religion may very well be a human construct and evidence points that way; this is not concrete evidence that all religions are human constructs and none are divinely inspired. Hence where my agnosticism comes in when I ask the question "which one?" And even if it could be conclusively proven that all religions are human constructs does that really prove there is no creator?

On the other, we are required to accept that the deity is simultaneously watching and recording seven billion people. And for what end? To decide who goes to heaven, or how many virgins they get? And even worse, to accept the sky-daddy myth requires a denial that any of the scientifically-acceptable reasons for existence are wrong.

There are a number of theists who are skeptical of omnipotence, traditional Abrahamic morality, Hell, etc. etc. Again we have a false dichotomy, you assume that either an individual is an atheist who accepts science or a theist who rejects science. I know many theists who are perfectly fine accepting the scientific evidence for why we are here. The Hindu faith, as is my understanding, has no problem reconciling scientific evidence of existence with their own religion.

Nothing about religion makes any sense at all, unless you consider a god might possibly amuse itself for a few billion years watching an ant-farm turn into New York City.

Which it very well may. It doesn't have to make sense to you for it to be true; keep that in mind lest you begin arguing from ignorance.

It is unreasonable and irrational to ignore physical evidence and accept blind faith.

Another false dichotomy, is it too much to ask for both?

Doesn't matter - right is right. And usage does change. How many threads have we had on what atheism means?

You'll forgive me then if your definition is one I've never heard used before.

 

[RandFan]

The consideration with respect to this post is a sort of blend. I'm an English speaker, and being an atheist, I'm not particularly attached to specific definitions of "god". So when I have to refer to the thing people believe exists that makes them theist, I'd like a more general sense of the word--something that makes Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and Thor gods, but not Satan and Moses. Merely being supernatural doesn't do the trick, nor does creating the universe.

That's all well and good but I'm afraid, IMHO, it's a lost cause. If you want to effectively communicate your ideas just be careful to pick and choose your terms and take the time to explain what it is you mean. Otherwise, when in a forum populated by folks from cultures heavily influenced by one or more of the three major monotheistic religions you really should expect the term "god" to mean Yahweh, Elohim, Christ or Allah (they're all the same btw).

Then again, you could be like my uncle and bitch about the misuse of the term the way he bitches about the tides that caries away the sand from his beach house every year. It won't solve anything but you'll annoy everyone else and it will make you feel like you are accomplishing something.

It's your god given right.

 

[fls]

Ah I see.

Still, the fact that we don't know the cause of the universe does not make it rational to leap to the God creator reason. If this is the way the term God is defined it's not just a God of the gaps, it's a God is the gaps definition. I made a similar point in that long thread about the deist "definition" of God. Historically, the deist "definition" was merely a shrinking and rejection of more conventional characteristics of God to the gaps in our knowledge.

I don't want to imply that the mere presence of a well-formed definition makes the idea underlying that definition valid. That God of the Gaps will ultimately prove to be untenable is well-recognized (there don't yet seem to be any limits on that ever shrinking space). Nevertheless, it is the idea that some rational theists cling to - they attribute to God what remains unknown. Other theists simply pretend that that which is lawful is not (ID, for example), or they cling to those inconsistent and nonreproducible events you mentioned previously.

Is it rational to cling to the unknown? It doesn't look that way to me because I'm uninterested in finding a space for God to reside in because I'm ultimately uninterested in its existence. But if someone is interested in God's existence, I can't deny that there are places for it to reside.

And it doesn't fit the definition of "definition" as all the characteristics necessary and sufficient to include the object in the class and exclude all other objects.

But it looks like it can be made to do so. Part of that depends upon what the definition is to be used for. I have lately been involved in some protracted discussions about whether it is rational to say that gods don't exist because we could yet discover something that is a god. The definition is necessary and sufficient to deal with that situation, since it would allow us a way to determine whether or not this was a realistic concern. Any discovery that had those characteristics could be a god. Any discovery without those characteristics would not.

Approaching this from the other direction - as a way to capture the variety of gods upon which religions have been built - it does not seem to exclude anything that has been considered a god. And it requires only fine-tuning (if anything) to exclude those things that are not considered gods. That is why examples are useful to me.

This approach also reminds me of a conversation I had with Schlitt about finding all the trapdoors in a vanishing illusion. He said it was necessary to identify all the trapdoors (or even all the possible trapdoors) in order to reject the claim that the person vanished (in a stage magic trick). That's not skepticism. Skepticism says you need evidence commensurate with the claim to accept it. If you don't have that evidence you don't provisionally accept the claim. What he was describing was debunking.

I agree. This has broad applicability - beyond the question of the existence of gods. And I see this form of thinking from others here - skeptic and believer alike.

As you mentioned earlier, the approach that assumes that everything is lawful, even if we don't yet know what that is, has been wildly successful. The idea that once we encounter something that is seemingly lawless, we give up and say "Goddidit" (or whatever one wishes to invoke), has been wildly unsuccessful. From a pragmatic point of view, it makes the most sense, by far, to go with the former approach than with the latter approach.

With the former, one waits for "evidence commensurate with the claim". With the latter, one gathers up the unknowns and pretends that they are meaningful until proven otherwise.

He suggested that I'd have to identify the trapdoors (say how the illusion was done) or accept that it was a supernatural event. I disagree. I don't even think that approach is good for skepticism because it makes the burden impossibly high. Most bogus claims can't be debunked.

Similarly, I don't think it's necessary to debunk God in order to show that accepting the claim is not rational. I don't think we have to prove the natural cause of the universe in order to reject these arguments for the existence of God (an undefined term) as irrational.

I agree. I think the definition I have suggested is useful because it exposes that kind of reasoning to scrutiny.

ETA: And I guarantee you that if you talk to the majority of believers in any other context besides rational proofs of God's existence, they'll tell you about a God they can have a personal relationship with, one they can pray and talk to, even listen, one that intervenes constantly in the natural world, etc. and not an impersonal force or first cause.

Exactly. It has the characteristics of interfering in a way that is unlawful.

Linda

 

[ponderingturtle]

You still don't understand what a probability is.

That is the point it is a argument that depends on statistical illiteracy.