Is it rational to be a theist?

[harvey1]

According to an atheist, there are few, if any, reasons to believe that God exists, and the God belief has been passed down from pre-scientific times in the guise of religion. The atheist often believes this in itself is good reason to reject the existence of God. The atheist might even say it is not rational to believe in God. Is it rational to be a theist?

[harvey1]

The differences in theories do not mean that the cause changes. The belief that certain diseases were due to the gods' displeasure cannot seriously be considered to have been the cause of diseases that that we now know to be due to the action of a virus or bacterium. I think here you are mistaking the cause with the perceived mechanism. You cannot seriously believe that such diseases were in the past actually caused by a bad tempered god.

Let's get back to the discussion at hand. I was just explaining how cause is not a physical observable. It is an interpretation. However, going back to the notion of slicing time to an infinitesimal we can ask the question, "why does the next time slice occur which is slightly different than the previous time slice?" I would like to know your answer to that question.

[QED]

I can't believe you'd stoop to slapping me with Hitler on this one. Methinks I'm getting dangeroulsy close to something precious or yours. You were concluding that the causal tie between two material events must be non-existent because the best that anyone could do was entertain a nominalistic interpretation when describing nature.

I don't think it is stooping. I'm having trouble getting you to face the contradiction your beliefs are bringing upon you, so we're going through this period of dealing with issues that are off the subject from my perspective. Just have some patience here.

You re-applied some of my words to write: "[o]ur inability to have a direct access to [Hitler being alive and wanting the fourth Reich]does not place any constraint on that [belief]." That sounds like a bad thing to me, don't you agree?"

I asked you if you wished to stand by the validity of this statement in the context of this discussion and it seems that you do, so I would like to work through it with you. Although our minds and bodies are composed of particles (strings or whatever) acting according to the regularities of physical law (QED, gravitation or whatever) we have no sense of the interactions on a one-to-one level. So our access to such things is necessarily restricted to the mathematical models we can manage to construct. Now when I point out that nature is not, in turn, constrained by our (or anyone elses) feeble attempts to describe her properly you're only comeback seems to be that this would be a terrible admission if it was applied to the Nazis.

Have I got this right? You're trying to get me to face the contradiction of my beliefs, but all I can see is an extraordinarily weak argument coming from your end.

[harvey1]

Although our minds and bodies are composed of particles (strings or whatever) acting according to the regularities of physical law (QED, gravitation or whatever) we have no sense of the interactions on a one-to-one level.

I'm not asking for you to have knowledge of the interactions. I'm asking how it is possible in principle for there to be causation based on a material model. That is your task because I can provide such an account in principle by talking about nomic laws that exist. If you cannot do this, then that demonstrates that you are believing in a material model with an overhanging contradiction.

So our access to such things is necessarily restricted to the mathematical models we can manage to construct.

We both agree on this part. However this is no excuse for not providing a description of how causation can arise in principle from a material line of cause.

Now when I point out that nature is not, in turn, constrained by our (or anyone elses) feeble attempts to describe her properly you're only comeback seems to be that this would be a terrible admission if it was applied to the Nazis. Have I got this right? You're trying to get me to face the contradiction of my beliefs, but all I can see is an extraordinarily weak argument coming from your end.

QED, you are asking people to believe you when you say that theism is irrational. Okay, let's look seriously at your claim. We get to the point where we find that you believe something based on a contradiction to cause, and you want us to continue to believe you regardless. That's not altogether different than if some atheist asked us to believe them that Hitler is alive and giving them instructions. Both are not only unverifiable, the perspective contradicts reason. Why should we believe something is rational if it contradicts reason? Why should we believe something is irrational when its converse philosophy is having serious contradictions with our experience of there being real cause in the world?

I'm getting a little disappointed here because you just won't address the argument. It seems like you want to address the Hitler reference as the argument which leads me to think that you are not even comprehending this discussion. Please, give me some encouragement that you understand the philosophical impact that causation has on materialist beliefs.

[Curious]

Let's get back to the discussion at hand. I was just explaining how cause is not a physical observable. It is an interpretation. However, going back to the notion of slicing time to an infinitesimal we can ask the question, "why does the next time slice occur which is slightly different than the previous time slice?" I would like to know your answer to that question.

Ok I will keep this brief and attempt to please both atheist and theist alike.
Theistic...Lightning Flash of Creation
Atheistic..Motion

Oh yeah, they are both the same!

[harvey1]

Let's get back to the discussion at hand. I was just explaining how cause is not a physical observable. It is an interpretation. However, going back to the notion of slicing time to an infinitesimal we can ask the question, "why does the next time slice occur which is slightly different than the previous time slice?" I would like to know your answer to that question.

Ok I will keep this brief and attempt to please both atheist and theist alike. Theistic...Lightning Flash of Creation Atheistic..Motion Oh yeah, they are both the same!

That response has nothing to do with my argument. So, let's not discuss it any further, you're a theist anyway so it doesn't matter much.

[Curious]

why does the next time slice occur which is slightly different than the previous time slice?" I would like to know your answer to that question

Ok I will keep this brief and attempt to please both atheist and theist alike. Theistic...Lightning Flash of Creation Atheistic..Motion Oh yeah, they are both the same!

That response has nothing to do with my argument. So, let's not discuss it any further, you're a theist anyway so it doesn't matter much.

It was a direct answer to your question regarding time. If you don't want me to answer a specific question then don't ask it.

[harvey1]

It was a direct answer to your question regarding time. If you don't want me to answer a specific question then don't ask it.

Okay.

[spetey]

This is another of Harvey's rhetorical threads, like this one, or this one, or this one, or
this one. (Not all of Harvey's threads are merely rhetorical. But these are.)

In each, Harvey is not interested in proposing an argument. Instead, the question is a variation on "what makes those crazy atheists so irrational / grouchy / abused / bitter / stupid?" This is a topic that begs the question, like "have you stopped beating your wife?" Of course we atheists think we are not (unusually) irrational, grouchy, abused, stubborn, or anything. Indeed, most of us are proud of being able to give reasons for our views rather than indulging in mere rhetoric.

Harvey, you said long ago when I suggested something similar that you would stop posting this kind of rhetoric. I was deeply appreciative, and I'm holding you to your word!


spetey

[harvey1]

Hello Spetey,

Instead, the question is a variation on "what makes those crazy atheists so irrational / grouchy / abused / bitter / stupid?"

You said it, not me.

This is a topic that begs the question... Indeed, most of us are proud of being able to give reasons for our views rather than indulging in mere rhetoric.

Okay, you just posted rhetoric and did not answer the objection that I made. Can you provide in principle a material cause that answers the scenario that I provided here? If you consider this to be rhetoric, then please show reasons why this question is a rhetoric one. It seems you have focused upon the Hitler issue as QED has done, but that is a response to someone saying that they have blind faith that causation can be provided in principle without feeling they need to answer. Have you changed positions on the issue of faith, Spetey? Do you now believe that it is okay for someone to rationally hold to a belief based on faith just so long as it is an atheist and not a theist? Hmm... Sounds suspicious.

[NGR]

A definition of rational is having its source in or being guided by the intellect (distinguished from experience or emotion). As harvey1 has already pointed out...

Theists base their beliefs on their own religious experience as well as their own need to have meaning in their lives.

...emotion underpin's theists whole approach to the God belief and as such rational is not an appropriate description of their behaviour.