Can theists be rational?

[cj.23]

Flawed logic again Bri!

How so?

cj x

 

[Bri]

It was the reason you gave for what the Drake equation has to do with the thread topic. That reason does not logically follow i.e. even if every single person who thought that a belief in god was irrational believes in something else that is also irrational has no bearing on whether a belief in god is rational or irrational. It's a tu quoque fallacy.

I don't believe I ever said or even implied that.

-Bri

 

[fls]

Some people who insist that a belief in a god is necessarily irrational don't think that a belief in extra-terrestrial intelligent life is irrational.

The question is whether there is some valid definition of "irrational" that would allow for one belief but not the other.

ETA: Arguments for the existence of extra-terrestrial life are often framed in terms of Drake's equation. But these arguments are similar in nature to arguments for a god such as the one cj.23 posted earlier in that in order to get a value out of the equation that supports a belief that extra-terrestrial intelligence exists, you must speculate on certain probabilities that are unknown.

-Bri

I have a way for you to tell the two apart.

The more constrained an idea, the more likely it is to be true.

(See here for an explanation: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4304989#post4304989)

There are constraints on whether or not there is extra-terrestrial intelligent life, while gods seem to be unconstrained. That is how one can distinguish whether one idea is irrational compared to another.

Linda

 

[Bri]

There are constraints on whether or not there is extra-terrestrial intelligent life, while gods seem to be unconstrained. That is how one can distinguish whether one idea is irrational compared to another.

What are the constraints on the existence extra-terrestrial intelligent life?

-Bri

 

[Darat]

I don't believe I ever said or even implied that.

-Bri

Apart from when you gave that as the the answer to my question about what it had to do with theist being rational or not you mean?

Look it is quite simple: whether the Drake equation is a rational argument for ET or not has no bearing on whether theists are rational or not, which is the topic of this thread. Why not start a thread in the "Science..." section to discuss if the Drake equation is "rational" or not if you are that interested in it?

 

[Egg]

That is how one can distinguish whether one idea is irrational compared to another.

I seem to have completely lost how we're defining rational in this thread.

From this quote, we have the suggestion that irrationality is a relative term - some ideas are only irrational when compared with other ideas. We've also had suggestions that making assumptions is irrational or maybe some assumptions are more irrational than others and that it's irrational to think that something might exist because if it might exist you're assuming it does exist or at least that it can and does exist.

cj's definition made sense to me, but the definition doesn't seem to match up to how others are using the term. I don't know if the Bayesian argument is rational, but it strikes me as flawed because might you not have taken into account the whole fine tuning thing when you make your subjective estimate of God's probability of existing?

 

[Bri]

Apart from when you gave that as the the answer to my question about what it had to do with theist being rational or not you mean?

Again, the question is whether there is a definition of "irrational" that will qualify one belief but not the other.

It is not an example of a logical fallacy, tu quoque or otherwise.

Specifically, I have never claimed that arguments that the belief in a god is irrational are wrong or should be disregarded because the arguer has other irrational beliefs. In fact, I've never even said or implied that a belief that the existence of extra-terrestrial intelligent life is irrational.

Look it is quite simple: whether the Drake equation is a rational argument for ET or not has no bearing on whether theists are rational or not, which is the topic of this thread. Why not start a thread in the "Science..." section to discuss if the Drake equation is "rational" or not if you are that interested in it?

Of course it's on-topic. Some people consider one belief rational and the other irrational. It's certainly relevant to discuss the differences between the two beliefs that would allow one to be rational and the other irrational.

-Bri

 

[fls]

I seem to have completely lost how we're defining rational in this thread.

Somebody gave a good overview in this thread (and now I can't find it).

From this quote, we have the suggestion that irrationality is a relative term - some ideas are only irrational when compared with other ideas. We've also had suggestions that making assumptions is irrational or maybe some assumptions are more irrational than others and that it's irrational to think that something might exist because if it might exist you're assuming it does exist or at least that it can and does exist.

The idea of assumptions and that bit of my idea that you quoted are related (if you read the link I provided).

cj's definition made sense to me, but the definition doesn't seem to match up to how others are using the term.

Cj's dealt more with internal coherency while myself and others are also taking external consistency into account.

I don't know if the Bayesian argument is rational, but it strikes me as flawed because might you not have taken into account the whole fine tuning thing when you make your subjective estimate of God's probability of existing?

The 'whole fine tuning thing' tells you how the probability changes over the distribution of prior or posterior probabilities, but it does not tell you how to choose one of those probabilities or provide constraints for the distribution.

Linda

 

[RandFan]

Is it really that confusing that I quoted some text from the article that talks about criticism of the Drake equation?

Actually it is. I still don't know why you posted the quote and you aren't telling me.

Do you assume that Watson is the only critic?

Of what value is the fact that there are critics. Are you arguing that if there are any critics then your position is correct?

No appeal to authority there.

Sagan is an expert in his field. Unlike Watson.

Sagan arrived at his probability as everyone else does: through conjecture. And others place it closer to 0. You do realize that if any of the terms are set to zero, the result will be 0 right? If, for example, the conditions required for life to emerge are very specific, there may not be any life elsewhere (see Rare Earth hypothesis). We simply don't know.

This is at best naive. Yes setting any variable to zero will result in a zero but there is no basis to set any of them at zero. I don't know how many times I can point out the facts.

....we don't know what conditions and circumstances are needed for the emergence of life.

?

And yet the probability is still speculated somewhere between 0% and 100% for both. Certainly not a lot to go on if your definition of "rational belief" requires a preponderance of evidence.

So are they the same or not? You can't seem to make up your mind. You are arguing from both sides. Is the probability of god the same as the probability of inteligent life outside of our solar system?

What we know:

That it exists: Inteligent life? Yes. God? No
The requirements (water, carbon, energy): Inteligent life? Yes. God? No
The requirements are abundant:Inteligent life? Yes. God? No

Yet you continue to argue that the possibility of god and inteligent life are the same.

 

[RandFan]

fls: Somebody gave a good overview in this thread (and now I can't find it).

Is this it...

Hi Bri. IMO, at least as it seems to follow from what I've posted, the strength of one's beliefs should match the strength of the argument for those beliefs. If there's very weak evidence and argumentation for something, rationally, one should only believe very weakly, "tentatively", in it. And if I'm to be consistent, where one has no clear evidence either way, one should only opine, "I have no belief as the evidence doesn't point either way", then giving one's reasons for believing the evidence is stalemated -- which is a rational belief in itself. (I don't see any problem, in theory that is, with suspending judgement on balanced, contradictory claims).

I think it is a good one in any event.

 

[angelsaramark]

Rational and Irrational Inevitable Co-Exist

The bible says that man is created in the image of God. Some of the most brilliant people that I personally know are illogical to the point where I don't know how they have 102 patents on the wall. One gentleman in particular has this wall of chemical patents yet invariable gets confused as to the simplest logic and things he's already proven false / true. He can't even remember how to get to work most of the time; and he looks for bigfoot in his spare although he's statistically proven that bigfoot can't exist. Could this support the existence of a higher power?

 

[angelsaramark]

If you believe the bible, then logic or wisdom is not the way. So this case is unprovable by design and ends the argument. The answer is yes, theists are irrational. See below.

1 Cor. 1:25.
Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

1 Cor. 1:27
but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong,

 

[Bri]

Actually it is. I still don't know why you posted the quote and you aren't telling me.

Of what value is the fact that there are critics. Are you arguing that if there are any critics then your position is correct?

No, this is what I said:

How "reasonable" those assumptions are is up for debate I would imagine. Some of the terms of Drake's equation are little more than speculation.

According to Wikipedia:

Criticism of the Drake equation follows mostly from the observation that several terms in the equation are largely or entirely based on conjecture. Thus the equation cannot be used to draw firm conclusions of any kind. As T.J. Watson states:[13]

The Drake equation consists of a large number of probabilities multiplied together. Since each factor is guaranteed to be somewhere between 0 and 1, the result is also guaranteed to be a reasonable-looking number between 0 and 1. Unfortunately, all the probabilities are completely unknown, making the result worse than useless.​

There is considerable disagreement on the values of most of these parameters, which accounts for the wide range of results that are considered "reasonable" by different people.

The Wikipedia citation certainly supports my statements.

Sagan is an expert in his field. Unlike Watson.

I don't think I ever said otherwise. What I said was that there are others who have criticized Drake's equation because some of the terms are little more than speculation.

Are you saying that because Watson isn't an expert in the field that he is wrong, or that there are no experts in the field who agree with him?

This is at best naive. Yes setting any variable to zero will result in a zero but there is no basis to set any of them at zero. I don't know how many times I can point out the facts.

Did I ever say there was a basis to set any of them to zero? You seem to be arguing with yourself.

....we don't know what conditions and circumstances are needed for the emergence of life.

?

?

So are they the same or not? You can't seem to make up your mind. You are arguing from both sides. Is the probability of god the same as the probability of inteligent life outside of our solar system?

I've never stated that I thought the probabilities are the same. I don't think we know what the probability of either is.

What we know

...

Yet you continue to argue that the possibility of god and inteligent life are the same.

The possibility or the probability? What does it mean for one possibility to be the same as another?

-Bri

 

[Beth]

What we know:

That it exists: Inteligent life? Yes. God? No

I'll take this to mean that we know that intelligent life exists but we don't know whether or not god exists. If that isn't what you meant, please clarify.

The requirements (water, carbon, energy): Inteligent life? Yes. God? No

The requirements, as far as we know, also include a fairly specialized environment. For example, I think that water carbon and energy are all available on comets but I've not heard much serious speculation regarding the idea that life exists on comets. We really don't know what exactly is required for life for life to come about anywhere but on earth. Perhaps carbon is not necessary and silicon could be used instead? IIRC, there are some deep sea creatures that are based on silicon rather than carbon. Perhaps a minimal amount of gravity is required? We simply don't know.

The requirements are abundant:Inteligent life? Yes. God? No

Being as we have no definition of what constitutes intelligent life (both life and intelligence are rather vague fuzzy concepts, as is the concept of deistic god) and we really don't know what is necessary to produce intelligent life (some would argue it doesn't exist here on earth ) , I think this last statement is overreaching.

Yet you continue to argue that the possibility of god and inteligent life are the same.

I don't think she's arguing that the possiblities are equal. I interpret her argument to be that the rationality of the two beliefs is the same. Personally, I agree with that. While I would expect the possibilities to be the same, the uncertainty regarding both is large enough that I don't see how it is rational to consider one of them rational and the other not.

 

[RandFan]

The Wikipedia citation certainly supports my statements.

Ok, you are not going to answer my question. That's fine.

I don't think I ever said otherwise.

You noted an appeal to authority.

Are you saying that because Watson isn't an expert in the field that he is wrong, or that there are no experts in the field who agree with him?

I'm saying that because Watson isn't an expert in any field relevent that he is a poor source.

Did I ever say there was a basis to set any of them to zero?

You certainly imply it over and over.

?

Inteligent life is here. On earth. We have much evidence for how life did starte. We have a very good understanding for the requirements of life and are moving closer and closer to even more specific requirements. Your statement is extremly naive.

I've never stated that I thought the probabilities are the same. I don't think we know what the probability of either is.

Yet you continually state them as the same. Somewhere between zero and 1. That's just nonsense. One of them has a basis for argument. The other is purely speculative.

The possibility or the probability? What does it mean for one possibility to be the same as another?

Touche. I misspoke. Probability.

 

[RandFan]

I'll take this to mean that we know that intelligent life exists but we don't know whether or not god exists. If that isn't what you meant, please clarify.

I'm really at a loss as to how it could be confusing. I don't know how to state "it exists" so as to be more clear.

We really don't know what exactly is required for life for life to come about anywhere but on earth.

And while there could be other possibilities it is the only one we need concern ourselvs with as to reduce speculation. The question then becomes, what is the likelyhood that there are other planets like earth?

100,000,000 stars in our galaxy.
300,000,000+ gallaxies in our universe.

Being as we have no definition of what constitutes intelligent life (both life and intelligence are rather vague fuzzy concepts, as is the concept of deistic god)

We have been over this before and it is a red herring.

 

[Beth]

I'm really at a loss as to how it could be confusing. I don't know how to state "it exists" so as to be more clear.

It would help if you would let me know iwhether my interpretation was correct or not.

And while there could be other possibilities it is the only one we need concern ourselvs with as to reduce speculation. The question then becomes, what is the likelyhood that there are other planets like earth?

100,000,000 stars in our galaxy.
300,000,000+ gallaxies in our universe.

Yes, indeed that is the question.

We have been over this before and it is a red herring.

I don't think so. I think it's a valid argument regarding the similarity between the speculation of whether or not some sort of creator god exists and whether or not some sort of intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe. However, if you prefer to ignore that argument rather than deal with it, that's okay. Speculation is fun and that's all we're doing here.

 

[articulett]

I cannot believe the amount of effort that those who want to believe will go through in order to NOT understand what is being said.

Beth and Bri-- incredible.

We have nothing to suggest that consciousness of any sort can exist outside a body. That makes god as likely as reincarnating souls as likely as invisible pink unicorns. Really.

We have evidence of material life and how it evolves... we have evidence that life can evolve in our universe... we have a basis on which to make a speculation. But since god involves an "immaterial, immeasurable entity"-- we have NOTHING to speculate about... there is nothing to measure... there is nothing to distinguish such a god from the non existence of such---the same as an invisible pink unicorn. Imagining what it does or did or could be, is not evidence!!! If it's not evidence for the invisible pink unicorn or the woo you don't believe in-- it cannot be evidence for god.

It just can't. In your mind it might work, but it fails all scientific tests for evidence. It's as silly as imagining that some sound can exist in a vacuum. There's no definition... there's nothing there to "conceptualize"... it's indistinguishable from a delusion.

 

[The Atheist]

The bible says that man is created in the image of God.

While history suggests that god is made in the image of man.

Some of the most brilliant people that I personally know are illogical to the point where I don't know how they have 102 patents on the wall. One gentleman in particular has this wall of chemical patents yet invariable gets confused as to the simplest logic and things he's already proven false / true. He can't even remember how to get to work most of the time; and he looks for bigfoot in his spare although he's statistically proven that bigfoot can't exist. Could this support the existence of a higher power?

No, but it thoroughly supports the notion that most people aren't irrational all the time.

It also is probably evidence of the obvious fact that owning a patent is completely meaningless. There are patents for perpetual-motion machines which don't work, fuel-saving devices which don't work, and millions of other products which don't work. I own a patent for a splunge-nurgler and I don't
even know what it is!

If you believe the bible, then logic or wisdom is not the way.

Well said. God, I wish more theists would admit that.

So this case is unprovable by design and ends the argument. The answer is yes, theists are irrational. See below.

1 Cor. 1:25.
Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

1 Cor. 1:27
but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong,

Yeah, it's always good to point out to theists that deep down, they know it's foolish.

 

[Bri]

Ok, you are not going to answer my question. That's fine.

I thought I had. I posted the citation because it supports my statement.

You noted an appeal to authority.

I suppose, if citing a source that supports my statement is an appeal to authority. That's not exactly how I would use the phrase.

I'm saying that because Watson isn't an expert in any field relevent that he is a poor source.

I agree. Which is why I cited a passage that supports my statement, and not just a quote by Watson.

You certainly imply it over and over.

You'll have to show me where I implied that there is a basis to set an unknown value to zero. In fact, I've consistently said that the only basis for setting such a value to zero would be to indicate an impossibility.

Inteligent life is here. On earth. We have much evidence for how life did starte. We have a very good understanding for the requirements of life and are moving closer and closer to even more specific requirements. Your statement is extremly naive.

So we DO know the conditions and circumstances necessary for the emergence of life? Do tell!

Your own words (in bold) seem to agree with the statement you indicated was naive.

Yet you continually state them as the same. Somewhere between zero and 1. That's just nonsense. One of them has a basis for argument. The other is purely speculative.

The probability of both are unknown (except that the probability is between 0 and 1).

That we have some basis for specifying values for some of the terms of Drake's equation does not mean that the conclusion is anything more than speculative. If any one term is speculative, the output is speculative.

Touche. I misspoke. Probability.

They are both possible. And the probabilities of both are unknown. That's what I said.

-Bri