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]

Hello NGR,

I feel bad because I owe you a response to the monster responses we've been generating. I think I'm gonna cop out and do what I did to bleedingisaac and just respond to a couple of paragraphs. I'm sure we'll eventually get to the other points in due time.

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.

I could say the same about scientific realists. What I said has little to do with being irrational. Being irrational means flying in the face of reason. It is not unreasonable to be a scientific realist, nor is it unreasonable to be a theist. However, I'm still interested in seeing a response to my argument laid out here above. The fact that the argument is being continually ignored gives me pause to think the argument is stronger than I even imagined. Hmm... This could get fun.

[Curious]

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

Apart from being a gross misrepresentation of theists in general (although I admit it may well accurately describe many theists), it is also wrong to suggest that emotion necessarily excludes reason. If I was to point a loaded gun at your head you would quite probably feel a degree of discomfort or fear. The same action,substituting the gun for a banana, would likely provoke a different response. Both emotions are entirely rational and are a product of the applied stimulus, along with an associated reasoning.

[QED]

I'm still interested in seeing a response to my argument laid out here above. The fact that the argument is being continually ignored gives me pause to think the argument is stronger than I even imagined. Hmm... This could get fun.

I'm sorry that I haven't had time to respond to this lately, Unfortunately the normally low levels of entropy enjoyed by close relatives has shot-up to record levels just lately and this is consuming a great deal of my time.

Let's see what it is that is being so ignored here: Harvey1 points out that the material realists are bereft of any explanation for how one moment in time is connected to the next. Is this what it amounts to? Into this allegedly yawning gap we then see him squeezing in god as the only possible explanation. Is this really what it's all about?

While I await clarification on that question, one side-issue that I would like to see addressed here is that even if god is the most appropriate filler for this gap then is it still rational to be a theist? To me theists are people who practice Religion and Religion is invariably built upon a model of an all-good creator. This hardly seems rational as it is based on the assumption that god is all good and I for one see absolutely no evidence for this assumption whatsoever. The reality of the everyday world is that life is preciously short and is an uphill struggle all the way. It might not seem it so much for some comfortable 20 somethings with their whole lives ahead of them, but the experience gained later in life is that life is actually hanging on by its finger-tips every inch of the way.

Were we a little less easily harmed or found it easier to survive outside our laughably small environment the assumption might be better justified but for it to be fully justified we would all have to be immortal. So the only thing that stands in the way of the obvious conclusion that either god is non-existent or is some sort of extraordinary sadist (judging by the inevitable death and decay to which everything is subject) is a necessary belief in an afterlife. So where is the evidence for this particular belief -- which looks to have no foundation in logic or science whatsoever and seems to be purely based on wishful thinking? Thus I would personally be happy to pin the conclusion that theism is irrational on this single matter alone.

[harvey1]

material realists are bereft of any explanation for how one moment in time is connected to the next.

Basically, yes. In addition, if there is no reason why one moment in time is connected to the next, then you should answer how it is that there is a reason for anything.

if [G]od is the most appropriate filler for this gap then is it still rational to be a theist?...[G]od is all good and I for one see absolutely no evidence for this assumption whatsoever. The reality of the everyday world is that life is preciously short and is an uphill struggle all the way. It might not seem it so much for some comfortable 20 somethings with their whole lives ahead of them, but the experience gained later in life is that life is actually hanging on by its finger-tips every inch of the way.... [E]ither god is non-existent or is some sort of extraordinary sadist (judging by the inevitable death and decay to which everything is subject) is a necessary belief in an afterlife. So where is the evidence for this particular belief... Thus I would personally be happy to pin the conclusion that theism is irrational on this single matter alone.

Without repeating my arguments in this thread, let me reply to this argument in so far as it is related to the rationality aspect of theism. What is required to suspect that a belief is not rational? Well, it has to be obviously contradictory. That is, it cannot have any possible answers that we can consider physically possible. So, for example, it is irrational for me to say that I'm going to begin my swim across the Atlantic tomorrow and meet you at a pub for a beer later that year. It's irrational because it is physically impossible for me to do that based on the facts that would need to happen in order for it be possible.

With an all-powerful, all-good God we don't know the physical possibility issues behind that belief. So, right from the beginning of your argument, we should suspect something is wrong with pinning irrationality to something that one cannot say with any degree of certainty whatsoever what it means for theism to be irrational in that respect. Not having evidence is not sufficient grounds for irrationality, otherwise we should think that the origin of life is an irrational belief. What must be shown is that it is physically possible in principle for God to allow evil and still be all-powerful, and all-good in the sense in which the theist claims those terms to mean.

Therefore, can we show in principle how it is possible that God can be all-good, and all-powerful? Yes. My arguments in this thread is one such argument. There are many other theists who have their argument as well, and there's no reason to believe that many of those arguments are inadequate to show in principle how God can allow evil.

However, in terms of showing how from first principles why a good God would realistically allow evil, I think I can show it (although, I think we should have this discussion on the other thread). To sum up, I think it quite naturally follows that God would probably allow evil and still be all-good, all-powerful in the process.

[Curious]

Let's see what it is that is being so ignored here: Harvey1 points out that the material realists are bereft of any explanation for how one moment in time is connected to the next. Is this what it amounts to? Into this allegedly yawning gap we then see him squeezing in god as the only possible explanation. Is this really what it's all about?

I for one did attempt to provide an explanation but was told in so many words to shut up and because I was a theist anyway it didn't much matter.

To me theists are people who practice Religion and Religion is invariably built upon a model of an all-good creator. This hardly seems rational as it is based on the assumption that god is all good and I for one see absolutely no evidence for this assumption whatsoever.

You are correct that this assumption is based on little evidence but are incorrect that all religions are invariably based on all-good creator gods. there are many religions that worship gods of war, destruction etc. etc. etc. even gods that demand human sacrifice as a price for their help or tolerance.

Were we a little less easily harmed or found it easier to survive outside our laughably small environment the assumption might be better justified but for it to be fully justified we would all have to be immortal.

But how would a dynamic, constantly evolving system maintain any sort of equilibrium while simultaneously working towards a more "complex" outcome without the presence of both creative and destructive forces.

So where is the evidence for this particular belief -- which looks to have no foundation in logic or science whatsoever and seems to be purely based on wishful thinking? Thus I would personally be happy to pin the conclusion that theism is irrational on this single matter alone.

I assume here that you refer to objective, unambiguous evidence supporting theism. If so, then I am afraid you will be waiting a very long time for an adequate response to this point. I do think though that you are confusing what is rational with what is correct. Please bear with me here, I will eventually get to the point.
If a person was bitten by a dog would it be rational to fear all dogs or only rational to fear dogs that will attack them. A person who has always loved dogs and has never been bitten might have no fear of dogs at all. Is this rational or would it be rational to still fear dogs that might in the future bite them. It might be rational to fear the dogs but this same fear would make it more likely that a dog would attack them so would therefore seem irrational if looked at from this perspective.
Now if it is rational for the dog owner to base their level of fear on their own personal experience, ignoring the experience of others who might have entirely different perspectives, couldn't it be argued that any personal experience might be grounds for ones belief in something else? I don't for one moment argue that it is rational to completely ignore the physical evidence as this would be absurd, but wouldn't it be just as irrational to ignore completely personal experience so long as that experience is consistent with physical reality?
I can quite understand why it could be argued that many theists seem totally irrational and choose to simply ignore obviously contradictory positions but that does not mean that all theists come to their beliefs irrationally. You could just as well ask if politicians are rational given that the majority simply follow the same line as their parents. Some do however look at both sides of the argument and then choose their party accordingly.

[harvey1]

I for one did attempt to provide an explanation but was told in so many words to shut up and because I was a theist anyway it didn't much matter.

No. I just don't want to go through the same kind of exercise I went through on the other sub-forum. We obviously approach issues such as this quite differently, and it would take a great deal of work on my part to try and breakthrough that. Since my reasons are directed toward convincing the atheist to re-consider their views, is it that important to go through that effort with another theist? (Incidentally, gauging from our other discussions, I'm not hopeful that we could breakthrough that barrier.)

[Curious]

No. I just don't want to go through the same kind of exercise I went through on the other sub-forum. We obviously approach issues such as this quite differently, and it would take a great deal of work on my part to try and breakthrough that. Since my reasons are directed toward convincing the atheist to re-consider their views, is it that important to go through that effort with another theist? (Incidentally, gauging from our other discussions, I'm not hopeful that we could breakthrough that barrier.)

Actually I think our philosophies have more in common than the might think. We appear to agree, in general, on the substance but not the minutiae.

[harvey1]

Actually I think our philosophies have more in common than the might think. We appear to agree, in general, on the substance but not the minutiae.

Perhaps. I just find a barrier with you that I share with most of the atheists here, but I can understand the importance of trying to bridge that barrier if I thought your views where off-target, but overall I see we do share many beliefs--at least the important ones. So, the conservation of energy should apply, shouldn't it?

[Curious]

... overall I see we do share many beliefs--at least the important ones. So, the conservation of energy should apply, shouldn't it?

Ok, I'll agree in principle whether or not I agree with your interpretation of thermodynamic law.

[QED]

let me reply to this argument in so far as it is related to the rationality aspect of theism. What is required to suspect that a belief is not rational? Well, it has to be obviously contradictory. That is, it cannot have any possible answers that we can consider physically possible.

I would not restrict it to contradiction alone. I would also class a belief in something that is beyond experimental validation as irrational. Hence a belief in the afterlife -- which I still maintain is essential if god is to be rationalized. Now attempts have been made to side-step this issue, but I am not inclined to let it go at that. What else does the world look like for mortals when they can see with their own two eyes that everything passes? God gives and god takes away, so the net gain is zero unless it is believed that we continue our existence someplace else.