Is belief in the Christian God a rational belief?

[harvey1]

From my understanding it seems some atheists might think that theism is a rational belief, but they reject that a belief in a Christian God is a rational belief. So, I'd like to open this up for discussion here on the Christianity subforum. Is belief in the Christian God a rational belief?

(Edited: A specific example was taken out because it was disputed as being a fair example on my part.)

[Dilettante]

harvey1 wrote:

Dilettante, what I used as an analogy is not restricted to QM. The three formulations of nature's laws apply to almost all the laws of physics. Perhaps you're referencing my joke to QED, but the interpretations for QM only demonstrates that there are different ways to interpret physical evidence. Religion is much more complex than interpreting physical evidence, we must also consider the pre-established beliefs, values, etc..

OK. But still, Trinitarianism is not about different interpretations of the same God, but about three persons making a single deity.

I disagree. Your assumptions seem to be based on that there is no God, and therefore there is no God that is influencing the concepts produced about God. I reject that premise.

My premise is not that there is no God. My premises are that rational beliefs are based on reason (no controversy here I guess) and that revealed truths are based on revelation, not reason. Abraham did not discover God through philosophical enquiry. According to tradition, it was God who decided to reveal himself to him. For all I know, the Aristotelian God might even exist.

[harvey1]

OK. But still, Trinitarianism is not about different interpretations of the same God, but about three persons making a single deity.

The term person is very controversial since Augustine denied that God was a person. Augustine said that God was a substance. So, God is three substances making a single deity. The laws of physics are similar to three different "substances" making up one super structure. The substance in this case are nomic structures that show how nature is limited based on that one substance. There are three different nomic structures that coincide such that we are really talking about one structure. Similarly, the trinity is composed of three substances, and those three substances compose one substance--one diety.

My premise is not that there is no God. My premises are that rational beliefs are based on reason (no controversy here I guess) and that revealed truths are based on revelation, not reason.

That's not actually true. Revealed truths are based on the notion that God exists, and that as a certain reality in the world, this divine presence is to be expected based on our heavy interaction through prayer and seeing the results of hundreds and thousands of years of seeking God. This experience builds up an "evolution of ideas" theological view of God, and this is what is considered over time to be revealed truths. There's nothing irrational about this.

Abraham did not discover God through philosophical enquiry. According to tradition, it was God who decided to reveal himself to him. For all I know, the Aristotelian God might even exist.

The story of Abraham survived because it offered something that it's competitors didn't offer. It provided core beliefs that influenced a small nation to assemble around those beliefs, and over the coarse of many years, those ideas evolved. The evolution itself was effected by the philosophical outlook of those who played a major role in the interpretation of the story of Abraham.

[Dilettante]

harvey1 wrote:

The term person is very controversial since Augustine denied that God was a person. Augustine said that God was a substance. So, God is three substances making a single deity. The laws of physics are similar to three different "substances" making up one super structure. The substance in this case are nomic structures that show how nature is limited based on that one substance. There are three different nomic structures that coincide such that we are really talking about one structure. Similarly, the trinity is composed of three substances, and those three substances compose one substance--one diety.

I was, however, referring to the Thomist interpretation (one I think is more representative of Trinitarianism in general) of God being "one substance" but "three persons". How can God be "three substances" and "one substance" at the same time? I suspect the word "substance" is just as controversial and perhaps more vague.

That's not actually true. Revealed truths are based on the notion that God exists, and that as a certain reality in the world, this divine presence is to be expected based on our heavy interaction through prayer and seeing the results of hundreds and thousands of years of seeking God. This experience builds up an "evolution of ideas" theological view of God, and this is what is considered over time to be revealed truths. There's nothing irrational about this.

Well, I never said that revealed religions were irrational. My point was that they are non-rational, not fully rational, preter-rational, or supra-rational if you wish. But, in any case, not rational. So when asked if belief in the Abrahamic or Christian God is rational, I have to answer in the negative.

[Dilettante]

Tilia wrote:

What others may call rational is for their judgement. Can the statement be shown to be logically inconsistent?

To avoid a pointless logomachy, let's define "rational" as "that which is based on reason". Do you agree with this definition?

And that statement is 'besides' the stated thesis of illogicality, and is itself circular, moreover.

How is it circular?
For God to intervene in history, He would have to invade space-time, even if just for a few seconds. In other words, God would have to exist in space-time also.

It was Jesus who said that 'God is a spirit, and those who worship him must worship him in spirit.' That is explicit, unlike the Trinitarian hypothesis.

But for such a belief to be properly called rational it would have to have been based on reason, on an argument whose premises can be known to be true independently of experience (a priori). However, as such, it is based on authority, the authority of Jesus, which one is required to accept beforehand.

None of the four reasons that 'may well be the ones people are thinking of when they say that belief in the Christian God is not rational' has been proved valid.

What do you mean by "valid"? If you mean absolutely persuasive, I never said they would be. We both agreed that God's existence could not be conclusively proved or disproved.

But even if that were so, it doesn't follow that belief in the Christian God is rational. Can you give me an argument for the existence of the Christian God which rests on a priori premises, i.e., entirely on reason? If not, it is still a leap of faith. After all, if God could be proved through reason, faith woud be totally unnecessary.

[harvey1]

How can God be "three substances" and "one substance" at the same time? I suspect the word "substance" is just as controversial and perhaps more vague.

As Augustine suggested:

and whatever else they are severally called in respect to themselves, they are called also together, not plurally, but in the singular number. But they are three, in that wherein they are mutually referred to each other; and if they were not equal, and this not only each to each, but also each to all, they certainly could not mutually contain each other; for not only is each contained by each, but also all by each... Likewise, when I understand these three things, I understand them together as whole.

Well, I never said that revealed religions were irrational. My point was that they are non-rational, not fully rational, preter-rational, or supra-rational if you wish. But, in any case, not rational. So when asked if belief in the Abrahamic or Christian God is rational, I have to answer in the negative.

I don't buy into the view that there is one kind of rationality. We each have different conceptual schemes, and within those various conceptual schemes we each hold a slightly different view of what is rational. If, perhaps, we would find out what most of us have in common with respect to rationality, I would suggest that we expect that there should be no major contradictions as well avoiding the use of invalid reasoning (i.e., no fallacious thinking). A rationalist will regard something rational if there is no good reason within our their own conceptual scheme to rule it out. This entails a certain degree of pragmatism since a nation of fundamentalists would have a much different view of rationality than a nation of atheists. Presumably, your community of believers or non-believers doesn't stay together very long if they abide by non-rational rules for long stretches. However, these are very loose restrictions, so rationality is not, and cannot be, a very well-defined concept for a nation of heterogeneous groups.

[Tilia]

quote="Dilettante"Tilia wrote:

What others may call rational is for their judgement. Can the statement be shown to be logically inconsistent?

To avoid a pointless logomachy, let's define "rational" as "that which is based on reason". Do you agree with this definition?

Yes; but that does not necessarily mean 'based on reason that can be proved by formal logic'. Some ideas, such as the existence of a deity, are not susceptible to formal proof/disproof. That is why I wrote of personal judgement.

And that statement is 'besides' the stated thesis of illogicality, and is itself circular, moreover.

How is it circular?

It is circular because it concludes that support for God's intervention in history (Scripture) is not support.

For God to intervene in history, He would have to invade space-time

Is that impossible?

It was Jesus who said that 'God is a spirit, and those who worship him must worship him in spirit.' That is explicit, unlike the Trinitarian hypothesis.

But for such a belief to be properly called rational it would have to have been based on reason, on an argument whose premises can be known to be true independently of experience (a priori). However, as such, it is based on authority, the authority of Jesus, which one is required to accept beforehand.

If the premises for an alleged Trinity can be accepted, so can this statement by Jesus, surely. The Christian claim is not to prove by formal logic the existence of God, or that Jesus is his incarnation. Indeed, many Christians believe that such a proof would be inimical to God's plan. (Attempts by fundamentalists to imply such a proof are intended to produce a counterfeit version of Christianity, imv.) There is no debate, if formal logic is the criterion, and Christianity thereby falls, along with all faiths, including atheism. However, if absence of logical contradiction, internal consistency, is the criterion, Christianity (as represented by Biblical sources) does claim validity.

None of the four reasons that 'may well be the ones people are thinking of when they say that belief in the Christian God is not rational' has been proved valid.

What do you mean by "valid"?

The alleged internal contradictions of Christian belief (incarnation, omnipresence/localisation, omniscience/evil, Trinitarianism) have not been substantiated.

We both agreed that God's existence could not be conclusively proved or disproved.

Indeed, so if God's existence is supposed, pro tem, then internal contradiction is all that is possible, and thus far, none has been shown.

But even if that were so, it doesn't follow that belief in the Christian God is rational. Can you give me an argument for the existence of the Christian God which rests on a priori premises, i.e., entirely on reason? If not, it is still a leap of faith. After all, if God could be proved through reason, faith woud be totally unnecessary.

Faith is not reckoned (by Biblical standards) to be intellectual, but personal. The intellectual certainty of God's existence and of his revelation in Christ is assumed. Christian faith is akin to trusting someone to drive a vehicle safely, and is illustrated by the incident in which Jesus and his disciples were 'caught' in a storm on Galilee, and the disciples showed lack of faith at that time.

[Cathar1950]

Most likely no Idea of God is rational. By it's very nature it fits within the field of metaphysics. Now within the system or belief reason is perfectly
Rational and useful.
Tilia wrote in response to:

Quote:
For God to intervene in history, He would have to invade space-time

Is that impossible?

Yes Tilla it is impossible and irrational. If god is beyond space/time then God can't be in space/time. They are mutually exclusive. Now if you want to say God is involved in space/time, God can act and still be more then space/time but not less or outside.
i think this is what we mean when we talk about the immanence of God and his transcendence. No immanence no history no contact no God's intervention . transcendence is fine. We maybe transcendent but we got to also be in space/time or it is meaningless.

There is no debate, if formal logic is the criterion, and Christianity thereby falls, along with all faiths, including atheism. However, if absence of logical contradiction, internal consistency, is the criterion, Christianity (as represented by Biblical sources) does claim validity.

What are you trying to say here?
You don't have

absence of logical contradiction, internal consistency

That is a creative fabrication based on a biased predisposition. If you belive that then that is your object of faith not Jesus or God. It is a consuming desire and chore of rereading rewriting and recreating your sacred texts to prove you narrow cultural interpretation with in a orthodox definition won by default.

The alleged internal contradictions of Christian belief (incarnation, omnipresence/localisation, omniscience/evil, Trinitarianism) have not been substantiated.

Yes they have. Your not acknowledging them due to commitment. You have already put your belief beyond the reach of reason, fact and substance.

Faith is not reckoned (by Biblical standards) to be intellectual, but personal. The intellectual certainty of God's existence and of his revelation in Christ is assumed. Christian faith is akin to trusting someone to drive a vehicle safely, and is illustrated by the incident in which Jesus and his disciples were 'caught' in a storm on Galilee, and the disciples showed lack of faith at that time.

Even the Bible standard is just your opinion. It is just an assumption like the rest.

[Dilettante]

harvey wrote:

I don't buy into the view that there is one kind of rationality. We each have different conceptual schemes, and within those various conceptual schemes we each hold a slightly different view of what is rational. If, perhaps, we would find out what most of us have in common with respect to rationality, I would suggest that we expect that there should be no major contradictions as well avoiding the use of invalid reasoning (i.e., no fallacious thinking). A rationalist will regard something rational if there is no good reason within our their own conceptual scheme to rule it out. This entails a certain degree of pragmatism since a nation of fundamentalists would have a much different view of rationality than a nation of atheists. Presumably, your community of believers or non-believers doesn't stay together very long if they abide by non-rational rules for long stretches. However, these are very loose restrictions, so rationality is not, and cannot be, a very well-defined concept for a nation of heterogeneous groups.

I apologize if I have misunderstood you, but it seems to me that any kind of rationality which is not founded on the law of non-contradiction, the law of identity, and the law of the excluded middle, would not really be rational. I would say that reason is common to all, or most, people of all nations. Allowing for the slight differences that you suggest, people from all cultures should be able to tell what's rational from what's not. Also, I'm not trying to denigrate religious beliefs by saying that they're not entirely rational. Most religions affirm that some or all of their tenets surpass reason and understanding, are mysterious or mystical, etc. Mind you, that is not to say they are irrational. I never said such a thing.

[harvey1]

I apologize if I have misunderstood you, but it seems to me that any kind of rationality which is not founded on the law of non-contradiction, the law of identity, and the law of the excluded middle, would not really be rational. I would say that reason is common to all, or most, people of all nations. Allowing for the slight differences that you suggest, people from all cultures should be able to tell what's rational from what's not.

I think cultures do share a minimum sense of rationality, but religion would certainly meet that minimum criteria. Once you get to specific segments of society (e.g., scientific sectors), the conceptual scheme is unique to that segment and you wouldn't get wide agreement on that scheme outside that particular segment (indeed, you may not get wide agreement from within that segment of society).

[Dilettante]

Some ideas, such as the existence of a deity, are not susceptible to formal proof/disproof. That is why I wrote of personal judgement.

It is circular because it concludes that support for God's intervention in history (Scripture) is not support.

But Scripture alone is not enough to support the hypothesis that God intervenes in history. That cannot be settled by historians...it has to be taken on faith. History does not rely on written-down memories, subjective recollections, or traditions. It relies on historical documents and artifacts. I was speaking of support from history, not from faith.

For God to intervene in history, He would have to invade space-time

Is that impossible?

At least it involves a contradiction. A lot has been written and debated about the transcendence/immanence problem.

It was Jesus who said that 'God is a spirit, and those who worship him must worship him in spirit.' That is explicit, unlike the Trinitarian hypothesis.

The existence of the spiritual is more an intuition or a feeling than a rational hypothesis.

The Christian claim is not to prove by formal logic the existence of God, or that Jesus is his incarnation. Indeed, many Christians believe that such a proof would be inimical to God's plan. (Attempts by fundamentalists to imply such a proof are intended to produce a counterfeit version of Christianity, imv.)

You're probably right about that.

However, if absence of logical contradiction, internal consistency, is the criterion, Christianity (as represented by Biblical sources) does claim validity.

We both agreed that God's existence could not be conclusively proved or disproved.

Indeed, so if God's existence is supposed, pro tem, then internal contradiction is all that is possible, and thus far, none has been shown.

A lack of internal contradiction is not enough to make a belief rational. That's why conspiratorial thinking so hard to refute. Conspiracy theories usually have their own internal logic (even the theory that American senators are controlled by aliens, for example). The same happens to theories like solipsism (the belief that the external world does not exist but is a product of our own minds). But I'm sure you wouldn't consider such theories to be fully rational.
The difference between weird beliefs and Christianity is that Christianity (except in its fundamentalist version) tries to achive a balance between faith and reason, constantly examining its own beliefs. This is particularly true in Catholicism, Lutheranism, and other mainstream versions. So Christianity is part rational, part peterrational. If it weren't for Christian theology, it would be like any other religious sect.

Christian faith is akin to trusting someone to drive a vehicle safely, and is illustrated by the incident in which Jesus and his disciples were 'caught' in a storm on Galilee, and the disciples showed lack of faith at that time.

Yes, but the case of the disciples is different: they knew Jesus directly, saw him perform all those miracles, etc. In other words, they had some evidence we don't have nowadays. I always trusted my father to drive safely because I consistently saw him drive safely for years. But if you told me that someone had told you that a certain sixteen-year-old was a safe driver, I still might not be so sure.
I don't agree with those who say Christianity is irrational, but I don't see how it could be entirely based on reason without excluding faith.