Can theists be rational?

[JoeTheJuggler]

You have inhuman patience, my friend. I don't think you'll manage to get through to bri even after 50 attempts.

I ascribe it to lots of free time and an unpleasant job I'm trying to avoid more than patience.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think the universe is much more "finely tuned" for single celled organisms myself.

Yup. Archaebacteria are the rightful center of the universe! It's abundantly clear that God loves the little guys.

It looks pretty much like multicellular creatures evolved because they could... not because of some grand plan. Where were the dinosaurs in this plan one wonders?

If you set up a sort of Drake's Equation for the probability of existence of ET dinosaurs, you'd have to come up with a higher probability of a dino-like creature than a human-like creature. They happened much sooner, and they survived a LOT longer than we have! (They were also more diverse than primates, but that's not really a good comparison--an order compared to a superfamily.)

 

[Bri]

Bri, you mentioned that the only things that have a probability of zero are those that are impossible because they are internally, logically inconsistent.

CJ is an Anglican (according to his sig). I just checked, and Anglicans believe that 3 things can be 1 and 1 thing can be three. This is part of their definition of God. Yet, it's impossible exactly the same way a 4 sided triangle is impossible. Yet people believe in this God.

So what do you make of this belief?

Well, that belief is one way to shut down an argument really quickly, I think. If God isn't constrained by logic, then we have no basis to discuss him at all since our discussions are always constrained by logic.

If this is the definition of God in the argument cj posted, you would reject the premise because the probability of such a God is zero.

I would say that logic is an inappropriate tool by which to discuss such a being. In fact, it would be near impossible to discuss such a being at all since we are bound by logic.

Again, this is why I wish theists would be upfront about what they believe. The Trinity is a very specific, and logically impossible, concept of God. Funny you don't see this God making an appearance in "proofs" of the existence of God.

You do occasionally see paradoxes such as "if God can do anything, can he make a rock that's so big that he can't lift it?" If your characterization of their beliefs is correct, an Anglican would say "yes." End of conversation.

So why did you bring it up?

I didn't bring it up. You brought it up. I've been avoiding discussing objections to the premise because -- well I happen to agree with most of the objections. You are perfectly free to reject the premise of the argument, but that's besides the point. Anyone can reject the premises to any argument, but that doesn't make the argument itself necessarily invalid.

In this case, I happen to agree with you about the premise. Are you really upset because I'm not disagreeing with you?

Could it be because this is the sort of "reasoning" that led to the argument cj posted? It does sound like the sort of thing that might lead someone to think the probability of a life-containing universe is higher if God exists. (And then use that as a premise to "prove" that God probably exists--yep circular reasoning.)

The argument is not circular reasoning. However, you're right about one thing, which is that the person who came up with that argument almost certainly started with the conclusion and worked backwards. But that also doesn't mean the argument is necessarily invalid.

-Bri

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

FWIW, you do know that Drake's equation was not put forth as any argument for the existence of ET Intelligence, don't you? It really is there to say, here is what we'd need to know.

I agree, but I suspect that RandFan would disagree with you. The problem is that some people do cite Drake's equation as "evidence" that ET intelligence exists and use it to justify a belief that ET intelligence exists. To argue that the use of Drake's equation makes the belief in ET intelligence "rational" while beliefs based on similar arguments for gods are "irrational" one need to distinguish the two in some meaningful way. I'm not sure there's a reasonable definition of "irrational" that can make that distinction.

This really indicates how dishonest you are, Bri.

In post number 651 (posted well before yours that I'm quoting here), RandFan gave a list of reasons to believe in ET intelligence. Not one of them was "Drake's Equation gave it a high probability" or anything else to do with Drake's Equation.

Now I have no problem disagreeing with RandFan--I frequently do, in fact--but in this case, not only am I in total agreement with him, I think you've completely mischaracterized his reasons for having a rational belief.

These people who use Drake's Equation as evidence of ET intelligence--are any of them on this forum?

Perhaps they only exist in your own mind? (So they're as real as God, no doubt.)

 

[Bri]

This really indicates how dishonest you are, Bri.

In post number 651 (posted well before yours that I'm quoting here), RandFan gave a list of reasons to believe in ET intelligence. Not one of them was "Drake's Equation gave it a high probability" or anything else to do with Drake's Equation.

Did you even read the discussion before posting such ridiculous ad hom attacks? We have been discussing Drake's equation since way before post 651 (see post 550 for an example). We've also discussed similar topics in other threads in the past. Those things that RandFan listed? Those DO have to do with Drake's equation. He was listing some of the evidence that can be used to come up with some of the better-known values for the terms of Drake's equation. And I agreed that they were valid.

Now I have no problem disagreeing with RandFan--I frequently do, in fact--but in this case, not only am I in total agreement with him, I think you've completely mischaracterized his reasons for having a rational belief.

I don't know RandFan's beliefs, so I've never characterized RandFan's reasons for having any belief.

I said that I suspect that RandFan would disagree with you. But I'll let him speak for himself. He has thus far been arguing in favor of Drake's equation as evidence for the existence of ET intelligent life. If you disagree with that, then I suspect that RandFan disagrees with you.

So let's cut to the chase here. Do you think that belief in a god is rational or irrational, Joe? Do you think that belief in ET intelligent life is rational or irrational, Joe?

-Bri

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Did you even read the discussion before posting such ridiculous ad hom attacks?

What ad hom attack?

I said you were dishonest and offered proof. You said you suspect that RandFan's disagrees with me as to whether or not Drake's Equation is evidence of ET intelligence. He listed his reasons for believing in ET life long before you voiced your suspicion. Your suspicion is wholly unfounded.

Those DO have to do with Drake's equation. He was listing some of the evidence that can be used to come up with some of the better-known values for the terms of Drake's equation. And I agreed that they were valid.

No. You're wrong. He was listing reasons to believe ET intelligence exists.

He even titled the list "reasons to believe ET intelligence exists" and contrasted it with the list titled "reasons to believe God exists". (Or something similar--this is from memory.)

He has thus far been arguing in favor of Drake's equation as evidence for the existence of ET intelligent life.

Nope. He has not. I'd have noticed it.

So let's cut to the chase here. Do you think that belief in a god is rational or irrational, Joe? Do you think that belief in ET intelligent life is rational or irrational, Joe?

You really don't read anything I write do you.

Please look at my first post on this thread for my opinion on whether belief in god is rational.

As for the existence ET intelligence: I agree with what Carl Sagan said:

I'm often asked the question, "Do you think there is extraterrestrial intelligence?" I give the standard arguments--there are a lot of places out there, and use the word billions, and so on. And then I say it would be astonishing to me if there weren't extraterrestrial intelligence, but of course as yet there is no compelling evidence for it. And then I'm asked, "Yeah, but what do you really think?" I say, "I just told you what I really think." "Yeah, but what's your gut feeling?" But I try not to think with my gut. Really, it's okay to reserve judgement until the evidence is in.

Conclusion: we don't know, but there is no reason to think we are unique in the universe. I'd say it's rational to believe that ET intelligence probably exists (or has existed or will exist). The reason for this belief is that all the things that happened for life to arise on Earth are things that can happen elsewhere in the universe.

As a skeptic, I don't put much stock in beliefs, though.

Also, I think it's not rational to think our lives are somehow controlled by ET intelligent life or that we have a destiny somehow connected with it. I think it's downright bonkers to believe that ET life forms have been visiting the Earth.

Sagan quote is from the introduction to The Outer Edge: Classic Investigations of the Paranormal edited by Joe Nickell.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Well, that belief is one way to shut down an argument really quickly, I think. If God isn't constrained by logic, then we have no basis to discuss him at all since our discussions are always constrained by logic.

I agree completely. That's what I said in my first post on this thread too.

Unless you can show me an actual definition of God that people actually believe in which is "constrained by logic", then belief in God is not rational. It is strictly a matter of faith.

You do occasionally see paradoxes such as "if God can do anything, can he make a rock that's so big that he can't lift it?" If your characterization of their beliefs is correct, an Anglican would say "yes." End of conversation.

Not the end of the conversation because they'd also say he is all powerful and there is no rock so big that he can't lift it.

The Trinity stuff is not a mischaracterization. Wikipedia says,

The universally agreed-upon foundations of Anglican doctrine are the three great creeds of the early ecumenical councils (the Apostles', Nicene and Athanasian Creeds), the principles enshrined in the so-called Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, and the dispersed authority of the four instruments of unity of the Anglican Communion.

The Athanasian Creed says

We worship one God in trinity and the Trinity in unity, neither confusing the persons nor dividing the divine being.

It goes on and on very repetitively, but makes the point that there are 3 persons and one being over and over. The three persons are all uncreated, eternal, almighty, unlimited, etc. but there is only one being that is uncreated, almighty, unlimited, etc.

So do you think it's unfair to think this is what cj means when he uses the word "God"?

Anyone can reject the premises to any argument, but that doesn't make the argument itself necessarily invalid.

That's true, but as I've said over and over, this argument is circular because the conclusion is assumed in the premises.

In this case, I happen to agree with you about the premise. Are you really upset because I'm not disagreeing with you?

I'm not upset.

The argument is not circular reasoning.

Is so!

However, you're right about one thing, which is that the person who came up with that argument almost certainly started with the conclusion and worked backwards. But that also doesn't mean the argument is necessarily invalid.

No. That just means it's an apology.

However, in this case it's also circular because you have to assume the conclusion for it to work.

 

[Bri]

What ad hom attack?

This one:

This really indicates how dishonest you are, Bri.​

I said you were dishonest and offered proof.

You did no such thing. Even if I was wrong, you couldn't have possibly offered proof of dishonesty, which implies a willful perversion of truth in order to deceive, cheat, or defraud. Did you prove that I was willfully untruthful in order to deceive, cheat, or defraud?

-Bri

 

[articulett]

I think "lying" implies "willful".

I'm not sure the term "dishonest" does.

I think all believers use dishonest semantics to justify whatever it is they want to keep believing in. I think people are perfectly capable of lying to themselves without even being aware they are doing so. In fact, my sig link is evidence of just that.

Doesn't everybody have memories of times when they had fooled themselves?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Well said, articulett.

Back to the issues. Bri, you never answered my questions about the probability of winning a poker hand after you have folded it or a lottery if you don't have an entry (ticket or whatever).

Not zero?

 

[Bri]

Thanks guys, but I think it's time to bow out of the discussion. It's been fun!

-Bri

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I said that I suspect that RandFan would disagree with you.

In that case, I suspect you're being dishonest.

That makes it all right, doesn't it?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Thanks guys, but I think it's time to bow out of the discussion. It's been fun!

-Bri

Ciao. I'm amazed you kept at it as long as you did.

We can just carry on by imagining someone saying that the probability of getting a 3 on a regular die is not 1:6 or getting a 3 on a die without three is not zero.

 

[RandFan]

I don't know what else you want me to say, RandFan. I've already said several times that I accept your lists for the most part:

But you don't accept that the list results in appreciable difference.

I'm just now sure how I could have been any clearer that I agree that there are differences between the two.

What is the effective difference? That's the problem. You are willing to concede that there are difference you just won't agree that those "differences" have any effective difference.

Those statements certainly support the possibility of ET intelligent life, but unfortunately without the missing pieces to the puzzle no probability for the existence of ET intelligent life can be concluded from it.

You are still missing the point. It's reasonable to believe there could be ET inteligent life. None for god.

So is your argument then that a belief is rational if you have reasons to believe it?

Yes, see Blobru's excellent post on the subject.

Are you saying that a theist cannot provide any reasons to believe in a god then?

Evidenced based reasons? Empirical reasons? My list are empirical. God?

 

[Macoy]

Paranoia can be fun - the greatest expression of human imagination.

 

[The Atheist]

Why isn't the rational explanation given her good enough? How does one person's mistake become another person's magic?

Because, as this and every thread attended by a theist proves, they really, really, really, really want to believe in it.

To do that requires just closing of the rationality gland for religious purposes, or, again as this thread evinces perfectly: dream up some crazy drivel, add lots of meaningful-sounding numbers (LaTex is 10 bonus points) and call it rational anyway!

 

[Bri]

What is the effective difference? That's the problem. You are willing to concede that there are difference you just won't agree that those "differences" have any effective difference.

Now we're getting somewhere! I'm not sure I would go so far as to say that there are no effective differences, but nothing that can be used to say with any certainty that one is more rational/reasonable/plausible than the other and certainly nothing that can be used to draw a line in the sand necessary to say that one is rational and the other irrational.

You are still missing the point. It's reasonable to believe there could be ET inteligent life. None for god.

Not missing the point, just disagreeing. Unless you have a different definition of "reasonable" than I do, the above statements are just your opinion.

Yes, see Blobru's excellent post on the subject.

I did see it, commented on it, and agreed with him.

Evidenced based reasons? Empirical reasons? My list are empirical. God?

Your reasons are empirical and evidence-based, but so are reasons for the opinion that the universe is fine-tuned.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

I agree completely. That's what I said in my first post on this thread too.

Unless you can show me an actual definition of God that people actually believe in which is "constrained by logic", then belief in God is not rational. It is strictly a matter of faith.

There are plenty of theists (probably most) who believe that omnipotence means the ability to do anything that is possible rather than the ability to do the impossible. If you believe in a god who can do the impossible (create a married bachelor, for example) then you simply believe in a god that we cannot talk about in a meaningful way because we are limited by logic.

I wouldn't say that such a god can't or doesn't exist -- it's just that we have no means to talk about such a being if it does exist.

Not the end of the conversation because they'd also say he is all powerful and there is no rock so big that he can't lift it.

The problem is that a liftable yet unliftable rock is a logical impossibility. We can't even discuss a being that can create such a thing.

So do you think it's unfair to think this is what cj means when he uses the word "God"?

I wouldn't know what cj believes. Why don't you ask cj?

I'm not upset.

Are you sure? You seem to be upset that I agreed with you.

Is so!

Nice argument! Ummm....is not! Your turn!

In that case, I suspect you're being dishonest.

That makes it all right, doesn't it?

It makes the statement more accurate, yes. But ad hom attacks still don't make a valid argument and I'd appreciate it if you would refrain from using them.

-Bri

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

There are plenty of theists (probably most) who believe that omnipotence means the ability to do anything that is possible rather than the ability to do the impossible. If you believe in a god who can do the impossible (create a married bachelor, for example) then you simply believe in a god that we cannot talk about in a meaningful way because we are limited by logic.

The vast majority of theists believe that God knows the future (except when you want to engage in a discussion like this one). Most of them eve believe that God has revealed some of the future to human prophets.

So. . .when they back off of that and say that "omniscience" does not mean that God knows the future, I say they're just playing around with words that have no meaning.

I wouldn't say that such a god can't or doesn't exist -- it's just that we have no means to talk about such a being if it does exist.

That sounds an awful lot like saying there is no rational justification for the belief in such a being.

The problem is that a liftable yet unliftable rock is a logical impossibility. We can't even discuss a being that can create such a thing.

Sure we can. We can point out that such a being is a logical contradiction. A being with those characters is just like a 4 sided triangle or a round square.

Nice argument! Ummm....is not! Your turn!

Yes. I noticed that you completely ignored the many times I've spelled out why the argument is circular. And your rebuttal invariably is to assert that it is not circular. So, "Is so!" seems to match your arguing skills.

So...how about the probability of winning a poker hand that you've folded?

Is it an ad hom argument somehow? Or are you going to accuse me of not reading your posts again?

 

[RandFan]

Your reasons are empirical and evidence-based, but so are reasons for the opinion that the universe is fine-tuned.

Which says nothing of god.