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]

I could do with a bit of cheering-up right now and I'm pleased to see that you've provided me with a laugh or two!

Sorry to hear that. I hope things aren't so serious. I wish you well, my friend.

When I was merely trying to show why I had introduced the problem of death and all-goodness in order to demonstrate the irrationality that I see in 'general Western theism'.

But, I took that to mean that you didn't see anything irrational with a pure theism; which is what all theisms are derived from, some set of pure theistic beliefs. If you have a claim against pure theism as being irrational, what is it? What makes pure theism irrational from your perspective? (Before you say that though, you should tell again what makes a belief irrational since I have no clue since you accept a conceptual contradiction as not making a belief irrational.)

Again, are you really able to conclude that atheism isn't rational because one particular Atheist admits to not being sure if your question about deltas in time is valid or not? If the question was valid and current physics was unable to answer it does that mean we should accept godditit as a rational explanation?

Well, if the shoe fits...

Seriously, though, if there is a conceptual contradiction, then it seems to me that the topic is beyond fixable. I mean, how is it possible in principle that material cause can emerge in a world where causation plays such an important aspect of our lives? If I am just an automaton, then why is that I don't feel that I'm not an automaton? It seems absurd to suggest such a thing. That makes the belief irrational in my book. If that's irrational, then what can possibly be irrational?

Once we get past that, then we do have to look at the real possible answers, and I don't see how any conception using nomic laws can get beyond the use of some independent mind that exists in the world. If you have another way, I'm open to hear those reasons.

This is not a "God of gaps" argument. A GoG argument is based on throwing up your hands in the air and saying "God did it." That's not the basis of this argument. It is looking for an answer on how to explain cause, and it is a philosophical theory of how to answer those issues. I think it's a pretty good theory, in fact. I certainly wouldn't consider it irrational; if you have reasons to say it is irrational then please tell me what they are (without referring to the religious side of theism which I say is separate from a philosophical theory that seeks to explain the nature of cause in the world).

I can picture many such identical solutions being offered down through the ages -- before electricity and magnetism were understood it simply must have been the god(s) who hurled lightning from the clouds.

Well, yes, that's true. Conceptual problems can sometimes find answers which have little to do with current understanding. The problem, though, is that if we used that excuse for everything then every belief should be on the table as rational beliefs. The purpose of labelling some beliefs as irrational and unreasonable is that we don't have to pursue those beliefs as vigorously as we are epistemically required. If we have a criteria for rationality, then we can work toward improving our knowledge without heavy distraction from nut cases. Unfortunately, sometimes our conceptional thinking is limited, and we do include rational beliefs in irrational buckets, but that's a small sacrifice to pay for the benefit that making these criteria yield in terms of having a relatively correct sense of rational judgement. So, if conceptual limitations are not to be considered good criteria to label something as irrational, then I do not know what else can perform that role. Do you have any suggestions?

To me you seem to have plucked this particular question of how time moves 'from one moment to the next' out of issues currently being researched in physics as one which, in common with a number of other matters like a quantized theory of gravity or a correct interpretation of quantum mechanics, still awaits a formal resolution.

I don't think so. The theorists are almost all on the side of there being mathematical truths to the Universe which cause the universe to evolve. Strings and branes, for example, are purely mathematical objects. The theorists don't spend much time worrying about their mathematical character. So, I don't think physics will ever address the material cause concerns because they don't allow themselves to be limited by them. In fact, science is on the right track because they aren't tied down by nominalistic interpretations of logic and math.

So are you arguing that in the absence of such resolutions atheism is irrational?

I wouldn't say atheism is irrational, I would say it borders on being irrational unless it can start anteing up on answering some of these conceptual issues. I think material cause is dead. The atheist, to be successful, must follow the lead of Armstrong, Tooley, Dretske, Smith et al. if it is to have any future at all.

Not that this would be any reason to conclude that theism would therefore be rational by default of course, but you seem to talk as if it was. I'm never going to be impressed with any argument which merely invokes god to fill some sort of gap or other. This is about as irrational as it gets for me.

I agree, I do not like any solution that waves a magical wand. I want to know why a certain structure is needed for an explanation, and what is the explanation for that new structure. However, we shouldn't just rule out a structure simply because it doesn't suit our materialistic minded thoughts.

[QED]

On the previous page:

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.

So in addition to contradiction, I also class a belief in something that is in principle beyond validation irrational. Are you willing to agree to this?

Seriously, though, if there is a conceptual contradiction, then it seems to me that the topic is beyond fixable. I mean, how is it possible in principle that material cause can emerge in a world where causation plays such an important aspect of our lives?

And your reason for this incredulity is:

If I am just an automaton, then why is that I don't feel that I'm not an automaton? It seems absurd to suggest such a thing.

Unless you are agreeing with me wholeheartedly, I will assume that you didn't intend your double-negative above. Your appeal to your personal feelings are hardly enough to sway the argument. Your not feeling like an automaton is perfectly understandable given the paucity of complexity exhibited by other current examples of automatons (like voice recognition units, automated visual inspection machines etc.) However, this is only due to the failings and limitations of our current technologists: After a few billion of years of refinement these crude technological devices of ours could well provide examples of automatons that we might readily be able to identify with. I simply don't subscribe to the hypothesis that we are 'special'. We are assembled from nano-technology, and I strongly suspect that the first human clone will 'work' just the same as we do.

Once we get past that, then we do have to look at the real possible answers, and I don't see how any conception using nomic laws can get beyond the use of some independent mind that exists in the world. If you have another way, I'm open to hear those reasons.

My Collins English dictionary doesn't have a definition for nomic, so just to keep us on the same page you better define what you mean by it here.

This is not a "God of gaps" argument. A GoG argument is based on throwing up your hands in the air and saying "God did it." That's not the basis of this argument. It is looking for an answer on how to explain cause, and it is a philosophical theory of how to answer those issues.

And the very same argument could be use to justify any previous GoG claim. i.e. "It is looking for an answer on how to explain [lightning], and it is a philosophical theory of how to answer those issues"

I think it's a pretty good theory, in fact. I certainly wouldn't consider it irrational; if you have reasons to say it is irrational then please tell me what they are (without referring to the religious side of theism which I say is separate from a philosophical theory that seeks to explain the nature of cause in the world).

Goddidit always sounds like a pretty good theory. That's the attraction I suppose. The nature of cause is something that might keep philosophers busy for an eternity just like the statement "everything I say is a lie". But the best explanation might be that the question is simply invalid to start with. You've been punting it all the while in this topic, but I not sure that anyone has really been able to grasp it properly. No doubt it occupies much time in philosophical circles (no doubt somewhere there is a forum where the philosophical heresies of atheism are argued over in this respect).

What sort of cause is it that you're talking about anyway? I know what causes an object to change its velocity/direction when an external force is applied. That Quantum Electro Dynamics accounts for this in a framework governed by the universal speed limit of light (such that there is a finite response time between all cause and effect) is well understood. I have already identified cause as in the application of human will, as reducible to cause through autonomy. Let's agree on the sort of cause you are referring to.

And while we're clearing things up... What exactly is this contradiction you keep alluding to? Please be very precise in the details because you have not yet made yourself clear to me and consequently do not deserve to go chalking-up early victories through obfuscation. It shouldn't present a problem I know, but things like double-negatives (intentional or otherwise) particularly seem to throw me when I'm trying to concentrate on your statements.

[harvey1]

So in addition to contradiction, I also class a belief in something that is in principle beyond validation irrational. Are you willing to agree to this?

It would depend on what you mean by "validation." For example, is it validatable that scientific knowledge is true? Not really. I don't think antirealists will ever buy into those arguments. Is scientific knowledge as "truth" an irrational belief then? Absolutely not. The term validate would have to mean in some Peircean way where a number of experts would still argue for the belief's veracity. Of course, the reason they might argue for a belief's veracity might be because there's no contradiction and there's some utility for the belief. Utility must serve a very useful function to be considered viable by experts, so perhaps validation should be replaced by utility and conceptual workability.

Unless you are agreeing with me wholeheartedly, I will assume that you didn't intend your double-negative above.

Typo.

However, this is only due to the failings and limitations of our current technologists: After a few billion of years of refinement these crude technological devices of ours could well provide examples of automatons that we might readily be able to identify with. I simply don't subscribe to the hypothesis that we are 'special'. We are assembled from nano-technology, and I strongly suspect that the first human clone will 'work' just the same as we do.

It still doesn't answer why there are macro reasons for complex behavior. For example, take a volume of water whose macro properties are determined by the micro behavior of the H2O molecules. Any attempt to explain the statistical behavior of the volume of water would have to be based on the molecules. There are no reasons, for example, for the boiling of water except at the micro-level. However, in the case of human behavior (for example), you cannot explain human behavior based on molecule behavior. You can only explain human behavior based on cogent reasons which explains why humans behave as they do. By looking for infinitesimal regularities having no reason for their occurrence, you have no means to explain complex behavior such as human beings as well as other complex organisms. In fact, much of the establishing science of complex systems would be inexplicable.

My Collins English dictionary doesn't have a definition for nomic, so just to keep us on the same page you better define what you mean by it here.

I meant to type "nomic relations," not nomic laws. Nomic means law, but it is often referenced as a causal relation that exists in nature between universals. Sorry for the confusion.

And the very same argument could be use to justify any previous GoG claim. i.e. "It is looking for an answer on how to explain [lightning], and it is a philosophical theory of how to answer those issues"

I disagree. There is a subtle difference between advocating a theory because that theory helps to explain something in a simpler way, and advocating a GoG theory because it helps to explain away a phenomena. So, for example, if we said that the big bang is explained by God, then we are resorting to a GoG theory. That's because we don't know what caused the big bang, so we resort to advocating a belief out of our own ignorance. There's nothing irrational in this per se, it's just that one should have reason for the theory besides the failure of competitive solutions. That's basically what makes the GoG non-preferable when approaching a problem. It's not irrational unless there is no legitimate evidence and there are very strong doubts to accept the theory. For example, the moon being made of cheese is an irrational belief because there's no legitimate evidence to suggest that it is, and there's very strong reasons to doubt that the moon is made of cheese. The GoG is not in that category if one means that God is the ultimate metaphysical reason behind a cause. However, if one means God is the scientific labelled cause of many events that we see, then that's irrational since we can observe other factors that do not appear to be directly God's hand.

Goddidit always sounds like a pretty good theory. That's the attraction I suppose. The nature of cause is something that might keep philosophers busy for an eternity just like the statement "everything I say is a lie". But the best explanation might be that the question is simply invalid to start with.

Of course, someone who says the moon is made of green cheese won't like the question why do they think the moon is made of green cheese. The reason they will seek to void the question is because they are holding to an irrational belief. The GoG argument does not win the day just because the competitor explanations are irrational, however an argument that can explain God in a natural and theoretical way, that would not be a GoG argument.

What sort of cause is it that you're talking about anyway? I know what causes an object to change its velocity/direction when an external force is applied. That Quantum Electro Dynamics accounts for this in a framework governed by the universal speed limit of light (such that there is a finite response time between all cause and effect) is well understood. I have already identified cause as in the application of human will, as reducible to cause through autonomy. Let's agree on the sort of cause you are referring to.

A cause should be necessary and sufficient to account for the phenomena. By sufficient I mean that an infinitesimal moment must guarantee the effect that it is to produce (i.e., the next infinitesimal moment). If there is no guarantee it will happen, then it would be problematical since the flow of time would just stop. At the bare minimum, probablistically speaking, it must be sufficient.

By necessary I mean that the effect of that previous infinitesimal moment is required to follow the cause. So, for example, if the effect is not required from the cause, then in what sense is that cause a real cause? If the world suddenly skipped 10 years, that wouldn't make much sense would it? So, there must be necessary conditions that the effect is required to follow from its cause.

In the case of a materialistic infinitesimal cause, you don't have either of these conditions present. There is no reason why one infinitesimal moment must guarantee another moment folllowing from it, and there is no reason why the effect of that infinitesimal moment is required to follow from that infinitesimal moment. In both cases the answer is, "it just does and there is no explanation." This is very anti-scientific and, I might add, this is not the approach that any quantum gravity theory is taking. All of the main theories are based on quantum laws being treated as nomic relations.

So, this kind of materialistic interpetation of nature is being ignored by science (as well as it should).

And while we're clearing things up... What exactly is this contradiction you keep alluding to? Please be very precise in the details because you have not yet made yourself clear to me and consequently do not deserve to go chalking-up early victories through obfuscation.

The contradiction is based on the assumption that all the quantum theorists are wrong in saying that their theory follows from pure mathematical structures. It is based on the assumption that material cause just happens. The contradiction that follows is that there is no reason for anything that happens, however from science and our own mental states we know we have good reason for things. So, the contradiction is that a material interpretation advocates no reason for things, yet we have reason for things.

[QED]

Utility must serve a very useful function to be considered viable by experts, so perhaps validation should be replaced by utility and conceptual workability.

Well we're not going to make much progress here then. To me something that cannot in practice or in principle be validated scientifically (e.g. the afterlife or personal revelation) is totally irrational. No matter how much utility and workability such things provide to some people, It simply doesn't work for me.

It still doesn't answer why there are macro reasons for complex behavior

This is all just shades of complexity. The boiling water in your example is behaving trivially because the macro appearance is identical to the micro -- the smallest component part. The macro reasons for human behavior are composed of a myriad of micro-reasons and there are so many of these that the system becomes non-trivial. Like the transition from a simple two-body to three-body problem takes us from computability to non-computability -- nothing magic happened, all we did is add another body.

It's all too easy for people to claim, on behalf of the supernatural, territory that is simply beyond practical calculation. For example, given enough data and enough processing power, evolution could be shown to produce living things. We know this because we understand the principles. This is a constant theme in creation versus evolution arguments and while you might ultimately argue for ID (given your theistic persuasion), I doubt that you would actually fall for the arguments that are based on incredulity.

The GoG argument does not win the day just because the competitor explanations are irrational, however an argument that can explain God in a natural and theoretical way, that would not be a GoG argument.

An argument 'that can explain God in a natural and theoretical way' ought at least merit a spot on the teatime news so I'm guessing one hasn't been put forward yet.

A cause should be necessary and sufficient to account for the phenomena. By sufficient I mean that an infinitesimal moment must guarantee the effect that it is to produce (i.e., the next infinitesimal moment). If there is no guarantee it will happen, then it would be problematical since the flow of time would just stop. At the bare minimum, probablistically speaking, it must be sufficient.

How do you even know that time would stop? As far as I can Google, nobody understands what time is! Do you?

[Curious]

A cause should be necessary and sufficient to account for the phenomena. By sufficient I mean that an infinitesimal moment must guarantee the effect that it is to produce (i.e., the next infinitesimal moment). If there is no guarantee it will happen, then it would be problematical since the flow of time would just stop. At the bare minimum, probablistically speaking, it must be sufficient.

How do you even know that time would stop? As far as I can Google, nobody understands what time is! Do you?

I would like to just point out here one obvious problem with this theory on the causation and infinitesimal nature of time.

If object A was in a particular state A(Beginning) underwent action "BeginningToEnd" which resulted in A being in a final state of A(End) then it is necessary for action "BeginningToEnd" to complete.
Now if each infinitely small change in time was to require some sort of "interpretation" of some law then the action "BeginningToEnd" would require an infinite number of interpretations to reach completion. Similarly, the action "BeginningToEnd" would require an infinite number of interpretations to reach the half-way point (or any other point from A(Start) to A(End)). Now unless all these interpretations occurred simultaneously ( if they occur at all ), there would be no way for A(Start) to reach any state other than A(Start).

[harvey1]

Well we're not going to make much progress here then. To me something that cannot in practice or in principle be validated scientifically (e.g. the afterlife or personal revelation) is totally irrational. No matter how much utility and workability such things provide to some people, It simply doesn't work for me.

Well, then this belief is irrational since you can't validate it. So, by its own definition, it's an irrational belief.

This is all just shades of complexity. The boiling water in your example is behaving trivially because the macro appearance is identical to the micro -- the smallest component part. The macro reasons for human behavior are composed of a myriad of micro-reasons and there are so many of these that the system becomes non-trivial. Like the transition from a simple two-body to three-body problem takes us from computability to non-computability -- nothing magic happened, all we did is add another body.

This is still missing the point. In the case of a pot of boiling water, the reason for its boiling are due to the action of its molecular constituents which the boiling pot has no control over. Are you saying that you have no choice but to believe what you believe? Are you saying that every thought you have is a result of some biological determinism requiring you to think every thought? Surely you must have reasons for your beliefs which are not pre-determined by some biochemical causes.

And, let's not forget the very basis of this argument. If there is no reason for any event, then there's no reason for anything. That is, it's a complete mystery why a next infinitesimal moment follows almost an identical version of the previous moment. Why not repeat the previous moment? How does information about the previous moment get transferred to the next moment? I don't see how you can offer an explanation in principle, and if you can't, then this kind of materialistic perspective would need to be rejected because it cannot answer such basic questions without appealing to magic.

It's all too easy for people to claim, on behalf of the supernatural, territory that is simply beyond practical calculation. For example, given enough data and enough processing power, evolution could be shown to produce living things. We know this because we understand the principles. This is a constant theme in creation versus evolution arguments and while you might ultimately argue for ID (given your theistic persuasion), I doubt that you would actually fall for the arguments that are based on incredulity.

Why would I argue for ID when I support a theory of mathematical laws which bring about the world? In my view, theism is the correct and consistent perspective within the context of natural evolution, and thus I don't think ID is needed. In fact, if the universe is continually popping a fresh from new with each previous moment magically being copied and slightly changed to reflect the changes from the previous moment, then it is material atheism that is relying on IDism. The difference is that material atheists are saying that instead of God making this IDism work, it is magic.

How do you even know that time would stop? As far as I can Google, nobody understands what time is! Do you?

I don't have to understand what time is. All we have to do is do a simple exercise of continually slow the process of time down to whether we reach the discrete moment or indiscrete infintesimal moment. Either way, we reach a point to where there is no explanation for the next moment. It must be at this point that the materialist waves their magic wand. Tsk... tsk...

[harvey1]

Now if each infinitely small change in time was to require some sort of "interpretation" of some law then the action "BeginningToEnd" would require an infinite number of interpretations to reach completion.

Well, of course that's assuming that spacetime is indiscrete. This is one issue I would think is not correct and future quantum gravity theories will dispell that notion. However, even if spacetime is indiscrete, there is nothing absurd with an infinite number of interpretations. For example, each planck moment of time could be represented by an infinite set. If platonism is correct, then infinity is at home in such a world.

Similarly, the action "BeginningToEnd" would require an infinite number of interpretations to reach the half-way point (or any other point from A(Start) to A(End)). Now unless all these interpretations occurred simultaneously ( if they occur at all ), there would be no way for A(Start) to reach any state other than A(Start).

That seems like an argument related to Zeno's paradoxes of motion arguments. In the case of interpretations these would be logical structures where one or up to an infinite number of interpretations could define change for the least amount of segments of change where time is not uncertain. So, if nothing can happen for certain within the space of one planck moment (i.e., any distance described is uncertain, any momentum described is uncertain, any angular spin described is uncertain, etc.), then a set of interpretations would refer to that one planck moment. This set could contain an infinite number of interpetations if necessary.

[Curious]

That seems like an argument related to Zeno's paradoxes of motion arguments. In the case of interpretations these would be logical structures where one or up to an infinite number of interpretations could define change for the least amount of segments of change where time is not uncertain. So, if nothing can happen for certain within the space of one planck moment (i.e., any distance described is uncertain, any momentum described is uncertain, any angular spin described is uncertain, etc.), then a set of interpretations would refer to that one planck moment. This set could contain an infinite number of interpetations if necessary.

The difference is that I am not merely describing the motion of A(Start) to A(End) in relation to these infinite possibilities. The argument that to reach the end, the half-way point must be reached and therefore each division by 2 means that there are an infinite number of half-way points(and therefore infinite motions), therefore making motion impossible, is rather foolish. Each half-way motion would take a relatively shorter time to achieve (working backwards) but if we were to state that our first measurement would be taken at x-seconds then the distance travelled in each period would in fact be a finite distance. If we are to work forwards even once, the paradox disappears. Now this is not possible if we are using time as the infinitesimal.
Zeno's paradox also fails to take into account that all smaller half-way points do not add up to the next larger half-way point therefore proving such a conclusion to be a false one.

[harvey1]

Now this is not possible if we are using time as the infinitesimal.

The flow of time is measured based on the length of some event divided by some number. When we refer to one second, we are referring to an event (one earth day) divided by a number (3600). This measures a second.

Even if it did take an infinite amount of "infinitesimal moments" to reach just one second, this is not to say that passage of proper time took infinitely long. The passage of proper time is relative to the occurrence of events. If there are an infinite number of micro-events in one second (i.e., time is indiscrete), the occurrence of these infinite number of infinitesimal moments is not measured by proper time, the measurement of proper time is defined by the occurrence of an infinite number of infinitesimal moments. The occurrence of these infinitesimal moments would ultimately determine what proper time is for a person relative to their frame of reference. Thus, you could have an infinite number of infinitesimal moments, but it would not take an infinite amount of proper time since proper time is determined by the infinite number of infinitesimal moments (i.e., assuming time is indiscrete and infinitesimally measurable within that level of certainty--a very poor assumption, I think).

In summary, I think your paradox and Zeno's paradox carries no concerns that I see...

[Curious]

The flow of time is measured based on the length of some event divided by some number. When we refer to one second, we are referring to an event (one earth day) divided by a number (3600). This measures a second.

3600 seconds is in fact 1 hour not 1 day, but that's ok as this is a philosophical rather than a mathematical argument.

Even if it did take an infinite amount of "infinitesimal moments" to reach just one second, this is not to say that passage of proper time took infinitely long.
The passage of proper time is relative to the occurrence of events. If there are an infinite number of micro-events in one second (i.e., time is indiscrete), the occurrence of these infinite number of infinitesimal moments is not measured by proper time, the measurement of proper time is defined by the occurrence of an infinite number of infinitesimal moments. The occurrence of these infinitesimal moments would ultimately determine what proper time is for a person relative to their frame of reference. Thus, you could have an infinite number of infinitesimal moments, but it would not take an infinite amount of proper time since proper time is determined by the infinite number of infinitesimal moments (i.e., assuming time is indiscrete and infinitesimally measurable within that level of certainty--a very poor assumption, I think).

In summary, I think your paradox and Zeno's paradox carries no concerns that I see...

But this proper time would be measured according to this event. Time is relative, so whatever we are measuring should be measured according to it's relative time. The passage of time elsewhere is not even relevant.
This number of infinitesimal moments is, like Zeno's argument, flawed due to the restrictions placed upon it by the necessity to diminish each moment to allow the infinity of moments. Any finite amount of time cannot be reduced without still remaining finite. To allow an infinity of moments, like in Zeno's paradox, we must assume a given moment can be broken into it's half-way moments. This makes the equation incorrect as 1/2 + 1/2 = 1.
The second half of the moment should be equal to the first half of the moment just as the second half of a journey should equal the first half. This is impossible in both your own and Zeno's argument. This argument states that instead of 1/2 + 1/2 = 1, it states that:
1=1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16+1/32+1/64+1/128 etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum.
This is not correct as you can see because the second half moment ( however small ) always equals more than all preceding half moments combined. To make the equation add up we must always add a finite moment and therefore make all other moments equally finite.