Can theists be rational?

[Ichneumonwasp]

But it's not a binary choice any more than "Satan exists" yes or no or "Fairies exist" yes or no. Any given human may or may not be pregnant, but the odds are not 50-50.

I can see why people would like it to be a 50-50 proposition-- but having two different options does not mean each is equally likely.

As far as I can tell, the claim "god exists" is as likely to be true as "demons exist" or "Thetans exist". They are in the same category or "irrational claims" with the same probability of being coherent and/or accurate. I see nothing to distinguish one such claim from the other in terms of probability. Is there anything?

Well, it's completely arbitrary and has nothing to do with real-lfe probabilities. The problem comes when people think that the first iteration through Bayes, which is what we usually do in statistics classes or in medical projection -- Linda does it frequently apparently, but I don't use Bayes' theorem at all -- is the endgame. But it isn't.

For something like pregnancy, we have to assume some truly ignorant person, like an alien, who knows nothing about human reproduction (or sexual reproduction in general). Then there is a 50% chance that any particular being is pregnant if we ask a simple question like "Is this person pregnant?". Next up is the question, "If the person is male, then the chance is zero, so how does this change the probability?", or something else like if there is an elevation of HCG level, history of sexual activity, etc. All of these different questions can be applied if we assume that we are completely ignorant about the situation.

It is highly contrived, but it is fair.

When we stop after the first question is when we get the wrong answer and make Bayes totally worthless.

ETA:

So, when it comes to God, we can start with 0.5 for a first question, but we need to ask other questions like -- what does it mean to say that God is logically possible but not physically bounded? Since there can't be any real evidence in that situation, we should hit near zero pretty soon with any sort of question we want to apply to God using Bayes.

ETA:

Or, for instance, we could ask the question about the existence of faeries, starting with 0.5, and make the question include the issue that faieries are physically impossible. We should hit zero on the first go.

The conclusion depends on which set of questions we ask and what we leave out.

I didn't choose this screen name for nothing. To leave out any question will bias the answer.

 

[articulett]

I treat all the invisible conscious entities as equally unlikely... I don't consider that biased.

I can't find any evidence to believe in one or some such entities while dismissing all the others as delusions. I don't believe in gods for the same reasons I don't believe in demons or fairies. I think that shows less of a bias than a person who feels "special" for believing in one or more such "unknowable", "undefinable", immeasurable things.

 

[articulett]

If one's goal was to be as rational as possible and to have "belief" correspond with probability then I think that the default position is to reject claims that something (or some phenomenon) exists until or unless there is enough evidence to conclude that it probably does and is not an artifact of human imagination. There is no more such evidence for any god than there is for any demon is there?

I've looked pretty hard into this issue, and I find them both equally improbable-- as improbable as all other immeasurable entities. Is there valid evidence to consider the average god claim as more probable than the average demon claim. Both involve poorly defined terms that generally refer to invisible entities that interact with the physical world in some way, right? So why shouldn't we treat all such claims as equally vague and unsupportable in our goal to have as correct an understanding of the universe as possible?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I treat all the invisible conscious entities as equally unlikely... I don't consider that biased.

I can't find any evidence to believe in one or some such entities while dismissing all the others as delusions. I don't believe in gods for the same reasons I don't believe in demons or fairies. I think that shows less of a bias than a person who feels "special" for believing in one or more such "unknowable", "undefinable", immeasurable things.

No, no, don't get me wrong.

You are speaking of the conclusion (and one that is not biased, but based on reasoning). Putting the likelihood of fairies at 0.5 is not a conclusion. It is a starting point; an unbiased starting point. We get to the conclusion by asking several questions and applying the analysis through Bayes' theorem.

What most of us do is reach those conclusions more quickly, not having to sift through Bayes because we can see immediately that something like a faerie is not physically possible. We conclude that there are no faeries. That is not biased.

The problem we discussed earlier in this thread and in a few others with Bayes is that if we want to discuss the likelihood of God, and we try to use Bayes' theorem, and we want to start from that arbitrary point of assigning 0.5 to the original probability, then we shouldn't stop with one question -- is God more likely given the existence of life. We need to keep asking questions like "what is the probability of God if people don't see her?" and "what is the probability of a personal God since this requires dualism?" and "what is the probability of an all-knowing, all-powerful God given the existence of evil in the world?" After all those questions are added to the process, we should end up as close to zero as we could possibly get.

 

[articulett]

I see. As a starting point, we understand that the answer must be one of two options... but as an ending point that doesn't mean it's rational to conclude that both options are equally likely.

But I am curious as to how believers in god rationalize their belief while understanding that the evidence is no more compelling than belief in Satan, for example... or belief in Thetans. In their mind it is more rational, but I think it's because they have learned to make it so-- but I'm interested in the explanation they would give someone like me as to how that can be. How is one invisible conscious entity any more likely than any other? How could anyone distinguish their god from a delusion given that gods appear to have no physical properties whatsoever? There IS nothing to know about a god in the same way there IS nothing to know about a delusion of a fairy.

So all claims of knowingness about god are by analogy as irrational as claims to knowledge about a fairy--or perhaps as "poetic" as such claims-- as meaningful and meaningless as such claims. I don't see how why it would be rational to treat them differently if your goal was to get as accurate an understanding of reality as possible.

 

[fls]

Well, it's completely arbitrary and has nothing to do with real-lfe probabilities. The problem comes when people think that the first iteration through Bayes, which is what we usually do in statistics classes or in medical projection -- Linda does it frequently apparently, but I don't use Bayes' theorem at all -- is the endgame. But it isn't.

No, I don't use Bayes' theorem like this, because quite frankly, it is stupid to do so.

Linda

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

es. And not just <<.5; it basically shouldn't even be considered until you have good reason to believe it plausible.

This is pretty much what I was going on about some 40 pages ago in this thread. The agnostic position wrt to the probability of God's existence is, "the value is unknown". Assigning ANY numerical value on that probability in order to reach a conclusion about the existence of God is circular reasoning. It begs the very question being asked (to which the answer is, "unknown").

If you plug something in there and treat it like an actual probability (like the probability of rolling a 6 on a fair die), you're simply begging the question.

The analogy I used earlier was that you're playing cards with a deck that may or may not be a fair deck. You've got a hand that needs as an "out" to draw the King of Hearts. (That is, you know without a doubt that if the KH comes up, you will definitely win, and if it doesn't, you will definitely lose.) If the deck were fair, you could calculate the probability of your hand winning the pot. It would be circular reasoning to use that value (the probability that your hand will win) as a premise to an argument that concludes something about whether the KH exists in this deck. The reason is, the premise already assumed something about the existence of the KH.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

No, I don't use Bayes' theorem like this, because quite frankly, it is stupid to do so.

Linda

Of course it is in the way that you use it because you already know a good prior probability at the outset with most problems you encounter. This is a different situation where no one can agree on a prior probability (that was the point most of tried to make early on -- Joe did repeatedly). It may be silly to use it this way here, but it isn't precisely wrong. It is entirely arbitrary. And it is confusing. And theists use it to confuse people. So we have to be on the lookout and poiont out the charade.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

If you plug something in there and treat it like an actual probability (like the probability of rolling a 6 on a fair die), you're simply begging the question.

Yes. It is very important to point out again and again that it is not an actual probability. It is so completely arbitrary that it is silly.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

But I am curious as to how believers in god rationalize their belief while understanding that the evidence is no more compelling than belief in Satan, for example... or belief in Thetans. In their mind it is more rational, but I think it's because they have learned to make it so-- but I'm interested in the explanation they would give someone like me as to how that can be.

I'm curious too. And I don't know.

How is one invisible conscious entity any more likely than any other? How could anyone distinguish their god from a delusion given that gods appear to have no physical properties whatsoever? There IS nothing to know about a god in the same way there IS nothing to know about a delusion of a fairy.

So all claims of knowingness about god are by analogy as irrational as claims to knowledge about a fairy--or perhaps as "poetic" as such claims-- as meaningful and meaningless as such claims. I don't see how why it would be rational to treat them differently if your goal was to get as accurate an understanding of reality as possible.

I think there is a subtle difference for things like faeries and the general definition of God. If we admit this up front, I think it might help avoid several pages of sniping, as always seems to arise in these sorts of threads.

Faeries are physically impossible the way they are defined, so we have no reason to believe in them. God is beyond questions of physical possibility or impossibility, so we can't apply that criterion to the God concept. God is logically possible, but I don't see how logical possibility gets us very far.

We should ask for extraordinary evidence for God, but no one seems willing to provide it.

 

[articulett]

Why are fairies impossible? What about sprites? What if I said "sprites" or "muses" are responsible for whimsical ideas and serendipity and kismet-- isn't that similar to a god type claim? If fairies are cut from the same cloth as god (outside time/space etc.) then they can be as "possible" as any god. These are all "supernatural" beings that are mostly invisible and said to be human like and communicate with humans, right? Demons are on par with gods... or maybe it would be more correct to say Satan is on par with God-- but those who are "on the fence" about gods, are rarely "on the fence" about Satan.

To me it always sounds like people are playing with definitions to make "god" sound like a more rational belief than "demons" or "fairies"-- but I can't see a definition of god that can't find a similar semantic blur in "fairies" or "demons". Playing games with definitions doesn't make any invisible immeasurable entity more likely than any other does it?

 

[Malerin]

No, believing God is probable or plausible is faith based.

Depends on what you mean by "plausible". Probable would mean the prior hypothesis ("God Exists") is >.5, which I'm not claiming. Plausible, to me, is that there is nothing contradictory in the proposition and there is no evidence to contradict it. I don't see anything contradictory with the notion that a god exists, nor is there any evidence that God doesn't exist. There is evidence that God does exist, though it is usually very subjective.

Furthermore, we can extrapolate from our own minds and ability to change the world that there might be a being with a much greater mind and much greater ability to change the world (or universe). This is essentially what people were arguing about WRT E.T. life: some think E.T. life is plausible because we already have one example of life, and E.T. life is simply an extrapolation based on life as we know it here. No one who claims that E.T. life is likely is prepared to give any kind of detailed account of what that kind of life is like and how it came about.

Yes. And not just <<.5; it basically shouldn't even be considered until you have good reason to believe it plausible.

I have no reason to think God is implausible and you have not provided one. God is very plausible to me, and explains experiences I and many others have had. An atheist might not think so, which is why agnosticism is a valid starting point.

I think I gave the rule to you already. The entity has not even been demonstrated to exist in the first place.

Which doesn't make it impossbile or implausible. E.T. life has not been demonstrated to exist, yet I find it plausible that of the 100,000,000,000 stars in the 100,000,000,000 galaxies in the observable universe, there would be at least a couple of planets with life on it. Likewise, other universes have not been "demonstrated to exist", but that doesn't stop some people here from thinking that the existence of other universes is not just plausible, but highly probable.

I don't believe the most effective means of obtaining true belief is to eliminate bias. I believe, instead, that the most effective means of obtaining true belief is to specifically be biased against a priori claims with ontological implications, and towards a posteriori claims.

When you assign a non-agnostic degree of belief to any proposition, you are making a near-ontological claim*. Pr("God Exists") <<.5 means you think it is highly unlikely that reality contains a god of any type. (*technically, it's an epistemic claim about an ontological claim, and if we were using possible worlds theory, you would claim that the set of possible worlds where God exists is much smaller than the set of possible worlds where God does not exist. An agnostic would say both sets are equal and would ask you your reasoning or evidence for favoring one set over another). So what is your evidence for thinking that it's highly unlikely that God exists?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Why are fairies impossible? What about sprites? What if I said "sprites" or "muses" are responsible for whimsical ideas and serendipity and kismet-- isn't that similar to a god type claim? If fairies are cut from the same cloth as god (outside time/space etc.) then they can be as "possible" as any god. These are all "supernatural" beings that are mostly invisible and said to be human like and communicate with humans, right? Demons are on par with gods... or maybe it would be more correct to say Satan is on par with God-- but those who are "on the fence" about gods, are rarely "on the fence" about Satan.

To me it always sounds like people are playing with definitions to make "god" sound like a more rational belief than "demons" or "fairies"-- but I can't see a definition of god that can't find a similar semantic blur in "fairies" or "demons". Playing games with definitions doesn't make any invisible immeasurable entity more likely than any other does it?

Faeries aren't logically impossible, they are just physically impossible. They violate the laws of physics -- they use magic and are invisible, etc.

God is logically possible, but many people want God in a separate category -- not bounded by the physical -- so we can't talk about God as physically possible or impossible.

It isn't a big difference, but it can save time in discussions if we bypass the whole belief in God is like belief in faeries bit. It's close but I don't think it's exactly correct. Bri has been arguing a similar (though in the opposite direction) course by insisting that belief in intelligent life outside of earth is similar to belief in God -- that it all rests on evidence, and we don't have evidence of God but we also don't have evidence of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. But we don't treat in the same way the physically possible (intelligent life elsewhere) the same way that we treat the physically impossible (faeries) or the physically unbounded but logically possible. Even theists don't want them treated the same way most of the time.

I say, give them the concession that belief in God is not precisely analagous to belief in faeries and let's move onto the meat of the matter -- what is the evidence for God? Since God is only logically possible, it better be pretty good, or we shouldn't even have this conversation.

 

[fls]

So what is your evidence for thinking that it's highly unlikely that God exists?

Because by necessity, God is made up. And we're not very good at making up stuff that happens to be true.

Linda

 

[yy2bggggs]

Depends on what you mean by "plausible". Probable would mean the prior hypothesis ("God Exists") is >.5, which I'm not claiming.

possible^dict
I'm using 2. Most people hold logic above all things--I'm one of those people. In general, almost everything that is logically possible, I would hold to be possible.

probable^dict
I'm using 3, "affording ground for belief."

Plausible, to me, is that there is nothing contradictory in the proposition and there is no evidence to contradict it.

plausible^dict
I'm using 1, "having an appearance of truth or reason; ... credible; believable". I'm not sure your definition is standard--it sounds more like possible definition 2.

I don't see anything contradictory with the notion that a god exists,

Reflected in my contention that God is possible. It's a mistake, however, to assume that when I contend something is possible, you have your foot in the door . That doesn't happen until you get to probable.

nor is there any evidence that God doesn't exist.

I don't quite contend this, but I don't take the other position either. It's almost cheating. When using the term "god" as a name, you're referring to a specific monotheistic entity. In general, any god that is the singular theistic entity that exists would meaningfully be able to be referred to by name as God in my book, and there's no evidence that such entities do not exist. However, until you tell me more about which of these hypothetical entities you are referring to by name, I can't say for sure whether or not I agree there's no evidence against his existence.

There is evidence that God does exist, though it is usually very subjective.

And post hoc.

Furthermore, we can extrapolate from our own minds and ability to change the world that there might be a being with a much greater mind and much greater ability to change the world (or universe).

Ah, you lucky devil. You happened to have stumbled on the only thing I've heard to date that I even give the slightest credence to for theists. I must point out exactly why... this actually stems from an a posteriori observation--a legitimate, ontological entity's existence is being used to support the existence of a deity rather than a mere a priori assertion. Given all of the other apologetics that I've been exposed to over the years, this particular argument stands far above the rest--which merely sound like pure sophistry.

The only issue with it, however, is that it requires a bit too big of a leap of extrapolation--it's not merely a matter of scale that makes us different than God, it's a matter of fundamental character. God's transcendent--we work using brains. God creates universes ex nihilo... we only transform matter from one form to another.

This is essentially what people were arguing about WRT E.T. life:

Right... they are the same, except for where they are different.

I have no reason to think God is implausible and you have not provided one.

That's fine. As I'm not out to prove there's no god, I think I must have wound up not accomplishing what I did not set out to do. On the other hand, I'd like to explore whether or not theists are rational.

FYI, I have no problems with people being irrational. I'm quite serious when I say that I try to make myself immune to euphemisms... I mean, look at my response to an accusation of bias. I've no problems whatsoever claiming I'm biased.

So, if faith is irrational, so what? Isn't that the point? If you have irrational beliefs, and you for some reason think it's actually better than a strict rational viewpoint... why not simply embrace it? I'm not going to beat you over the head with it (I can't speak for others here). In fact, I wouldn't even claim to be rational myself. Maybe I am, maybe I'm not. I care a lot more about whether I think I'm approaching things the right way than I do with whether or not I fit some label.

What I do care about, however, is critical thinking. And that, I will beat anyone over the head with.

God is very plausible to me, and explains experiences I and many others have had.

And that's fine with me. But once you start making arguments for God and claiming that they are rational, you're pushing my critical thinking buttons.

The rest of your post I won't comment on, given the terminology mismatch.

Edit:

Which doesn't make it impossbile or implausible.

Not impossible, but definitely implausible. God, recall, is of an entirely different class of entities than us. "Intelligent life" is pretty much a description of the class of entity we are. The two aren't the same... in fact, put it this way. "God" is intelligent, right? And alive too? We could realistically grant him extra-terrestrial status since he doesn't originate from our planet as well.

So essentially, you're comparing extra terrestrial intelligent life, with extra terrestrial intelligent life that is transcendent, that can create universes ex nihilo, etc. Comparing the two is something like a conjunction fallacy on steroids.

 

[PixyMisa]

Depends on what you mean by "plausible". Probable would mean the prior hypothesis ("God Exists") is >.5, which I'm not claiming. Plausible, to me, is that there is nothing contradictory in the proposition and there is no evidence to contradict it. I don't see anything contradictory with the notion that a god exists

Define "God".

CJ provided a definition for God - and his definition was inherently self-contradictory.

So it all depends.

nor is there any evidence that God doesn't exist. There is evidence that God does exist, though it is usually very subjective.

You can't make either of those statements without an operational definition of God.

 

[Roma]

Operational definition of God? Would creator of the universe do?

Also, in answer to the question "can theists be rational", I would say that what we theists consider rational would likely be irrational to atheists.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Operational definition of God? Would creator of the universe do?

No, because it fails to exclude a great many concepts that you don't mean when you say "God" (such as this list of creator gods, the singularity or other initial condition that led to the Big Bang, a perfectly non-paranormal super-intelligent space alien, etc.)

Now if you gave a list of characteristics of the Creator you have in mind that would functionally define it (by including what you mean to include and excluding everything else), you'd have something we could discuss.

Also, in answer to the question "can theists be rational", I would say that what we theists consider rational would likely be irrational to atheists.

Yes, but they're both not right (unless they're using different meanings of the word "rational" as cj and others have been doing for much of this thread). Linda has given a very good definition of what she means by "rational"--and she's the one asking the question.

cj at least agreed with me (on the same point yy2bggs recently made) that few if any theists rely on a rational approach to theism. That's pretty much what it means to have faith. Many of them are proud that their faith is faith (and not a belief based on evidence).

 

[yy2bggggs]

I would disagree with JoeTheJuggler (in practice at least... I get the feeling not in spirit). Failing to exclude other gods isn't an issue, unless you really mean something different than what you're proposing, in which case the definition is bad (seeing how the entire point of definitions is to describe meaning, a definition is good only insofar as it accurately describes what is meant).

Given a few other implied traits that are taken literally (such as that "creator" implies a sentient entity that causes the universe to come into being, with intent), I'm not sure there's a better way to describe said entity than by using the term "God"--it's quite a good match. But it is worth noting what this doesn't exclude (or include), if you're taking it seriously.

Nevertheless, given this operational definition, I would contend that there is no evidence that said entity does not exist. Everything else stands, including the implausibility of said entity's existence.

 

[Roma]

JoeTheJuggler, as for the theists who are proud that their faith is faith and not a belief based on evidence I'm one of them.

How about a Bill Clintonesque definition of God: God is. If is is.

Probably not going to go for that, I don't think there is any way I could explain what I believe God is that you would agree to, I would have to include everything in the universe when I say He created it which obviously leaves me with questions from atheists like: so God created evil ? Hurricanes? Black Holes? The guy who raped my sister? etc....

And how do I say what was before God, I can only say that God always was and atheists will say that's impossible.

God is The Holy Father of every human being on earth, I know very well how silly that sounds to atheists, still it's part of the definition you wanted.
Then of course to say that He loves all of his children here on earth is going to cause some atheists to become apoplectic.

Anyway there you have it, should I add anything else to define what God is?