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.)

[Tilia]

quote="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

That is a matter of opinion, and it is not just for historians to decide this. The Bible is undoubtedly support for the view that God has intervened in history, for consideration by anyone. I'm not saying either that it is the only support, or that it is sufficient support. I'm not saying it isn't sufficient, either; just that it is support.

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

Is that impossible?

At least it involves a contradiction.

Why is that?

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.

For those who decide that Jesus was God's manifestation, it is more than that; unlike the Trinitarian hypothesis, that is supported neither by Jesus nor his apostles.

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.

It cannot be irrational, if God's existence cannot be disproved.

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.

I certainly would. Alien control of senators is perfectly rational, and feasible. I recall that a movie has been made on this very theme. That does not mean that it is likely, though. No-one actually believes that aliens control senators; but many senators believe that God has intervened. The real point is that there is no evidence for alien control, but there is evidence for the intervention of God in the affairs of man.

As for solipsism, can it be proved incorrect? Because if it cannot, it must be 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.

Christian faith is not intellectual, as I have explained.

So Christianity is part rational, part peterrational.

The preternatural is not irrational. Christianity is 100% rational; so are all other religions and atheism, for that matter. It's just they are all wrong, bar one, if that.

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.

That does not detract from the fact that Christian faith is not a matter of intellectual belief; in fact, it supports it. The disciples then had almost total intellectual belief, and later on actually took quite a lot of weaning off it onto the 'updated version'. Their lack of faith at that stage was a personal lack, not an intellectual one. Later on, the position was reversed in some ways.

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.

But you don't know me. People very often become Christians because they see a personal difference in a Christian, one that leads them to trust him or her, and to want to become like that person.

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.

Faith does not need to be non-rational; in fact it is likely to be heretical if it is non-rational. There is a big difference between the rational and what can be proved in formal logic.

[Dilettante]

That is a matter of opinion, and it is not just for historians to decide this. The Bible is undoubtedly support for the view that God has intervened in history, for consideration by anyone. I'm not saying either that it is the only support, or that it is sufficient support. I'm not saying it isn't sufficient, either; just that it is support.

I doubt that a hypothetical impartial observer would consider it sufficient, or consider it an unbiased source.

Also, as for the transcendence/immanence problem, the contradiction or paradox is in saying that God exists outside space-time but at the same time He is present in space-time to alter events when necessary. Perhaps God exists in some unusual way. After all, to say that God "exists" cannot be the same as to say that Jay Leno exists, because in our world "to exist" means "to occupy a place in space and time". Jay Leno is immanent [Edit= at least in the sense of residing in the world], the Christian God is transcendent.

For those who decide that Jesus was God's manifestation, it is more than that; unlike the Trinitarian hypothesis, that is supported neither by Jesus nor his apostles.

What is it then? It is not knowledge, that's for sure.

It cannot be irrational, if God's existence cannot be disproved.

It would be irrational if it contradicted reason. But that's not my claim, I say it is preter-rational (or supra-rational, if you prefer) because there is no objective evidence on which to base our judgement (cannot be proved or disproved, as you yourself wrote).

I certainly would. Alien control of senators is perfectly rational, and feasible. I recall that a movie has been made on this very theme. That does not mean that it is likely, though. No-one actually believes that aliens control senators; but many senators believe that God has intervened. The real point is that there is no evidence for alien control, but there is evidence for the intervention of God in the affairs of man.

If there is no evidence whatsoever for alien control of senators, I would say it is not a rationally justified belief. How could it be rational? Can the movie constitute adequate support for that belief? I bet you wouldn't be convinced by a few movies.

As for solipsism, can it be proved incorrect? Because if it cannot, it must be rational.

Solipsism probably is logically unassailable (except that it complicates things unnecessarily, flying in the face of Occam's razor), but I can think of experiments which would prove it incorrect.

Christian faith is not intellectual, as I have explained.

I didn't say it was. But you can't deny that Christian theologians have tried to apply reason in order to define doctrine, refute heresies, and make sense of difficult questions. They may not always have been as successful as they hoped to be, but they have done it and continue to do it today (fides quaerens intellectum).

So Christianity is part rational, part peterrational.

The preternatural is not irrational. Christianity is 100% rational; so are all other religions and atheism, for that matter. It's just they are all wrong, bar one, if that.

How can all be 100% rational? Very few human endeavors get close to being that rational. By preterrational I mean "beyond reason". If the existence of God is impossible to prove or disprove, it is precisely because it is not a belief which falls within the realm of logic or science.

People very often become Christians because they see a personal difference in a Christian, one that leads them to trust him or her, and to want to become like that person.

Of course, but many more people become Christians because they are born into a Christian family.

Faith does not need to be non-rational; in fact it is likely to be heretical if it is non-rational. There is a big difference between the rational and what can be proved in formal logic.

It's not only formal or informal logic. It's also evidence. Religious faith is commonly defined as belief in the absence of evidence, so it can't be fully rational.

[Cathar1950]

The

transcendence/immanence problem

is fun.
When they say God is outside space/time they are saying god is Transcendent. This runs into the problem of how God could possibly act or reveal in history or any where else for that mater. Dualism and all kinds of reasons and apologetics have have been working one this for a few millennium. Most have been found lacking. Now God Immanence would be god in everything and has found wanting it takes different fors such as pantheism and animism . A recent approach has been in the form of Panentheism where God in Immanate in everything but also transcends in that God is also more and not limited by the universe. Of course it has it's problems also.

That is a matter of opinion, and it is not just for historians to decide this. The Bible is undoubtedly support for the view that God has intervened in history, for consideration by anyone.

This seems rather self referencing. It seems also the Bible has taken the place of God.

[Tilia]

That is a matter of opinion, and it is not just for historians to decide this. The Bible is undoubtedly support for the view that God has intervened in history, for consideration by anyone. I'm not saying either that it is the only support, or that it is sufficient support. I'm not saying it isn't sufficient, either; just that it is support.

I doubt that a hypothetical impartial observer would consider it sufficient, or consider it an unbiased source.

Personal opinions about sufficiency are not relevant. The claim made was that Scripture is not support, which is presumably now withdrawn.

Also, as for the transcendence/immanence problem, the contradiction or paradox is in saying that God exists outside space-time but at the same time He is present in space-time to alter events when necessary.

That is a true logical impossibility. God cannot be 'in two places at the same time', if in one 'existence' there is neither place nor time.

For those who decide that Jesus was God's manifestation, it is more than that; unlike the Trinitarian hypothesis, that is supported neither by Jesus nor his apostles.

What is it then? It is not knowledge, that's for sure.

That is not the case; it may be knowledge. It cannot be proved to be not the view of the supreme being and creator of all things, and certainly cannot be proved to be illogical.

It cannot be irrational, if God's existence cannot be disproved.

It would be irrational if it contradicted reason. But that's not my claim, I say it is preter-rational (or supra-rational, if you prefer) because there is no objective evidence on which to base our judgement (cannot be proved or disproved, as you yourself wrote).

If there is no objective evidence, then that is correct.

I certainly would. Alien control of senators is perfectly rational, and feasible. I recall that a movie has been made on this very theme. That does not mean that it is likely, though. No-one actually believes that aliens control senators; but many senators believe that God has intervened. The real point is that there is no evidence for alien control, but there is evidence for the intervention of God in the affairs of man.

If there is no evidence whatsoever for alien control of senators, I would say it is not a rationally justified belief. How could it be rational?

Because it does not conflict with the laws of reason; it may even be true, or become true.

As for solipsism, can it be proved incorrect? Because if it cannot, it must be rational.

Solipsism probably is logically unassailable (except that it complicates things unnecessarily, flying in the face of Occam's razor), but I can think of experiments which would prove it incorrect.

What are they?

Christian faith is not intellectual, as I have explained.

I didn't say it was. But you can't deny that Christian theologians have tried to apply reason in order to define doctrine, refute heresies, and make sense of difficult questions.

Doctrines are not faith; they are formers of faith, and results of faith. Correct doctrines are very rational (and heresies are always irrational).

So Christianity is part rational, part peterrational.

The preternatural is not irrational. Christianity is 100% rational; so are all other religions and atheism, for that matter. It's just they are all wrong, bar one, if that.

How can all be 100% rational?

Everything about real Christianity has reason as a basis.

Very few human endeavors get close to being that rational.

Very few serious ones don't get close. Engineers, scientists, politicians, businessmen, even artists use rationality, or fail. Imv, Christianity has survived in an increasingly rational world because it is rationally impeccable, if not compelling, as well as being spiritually persuasive. Many find it the best explanation of existence, as well as of enormous practical value.

By preterrational I mean "beyond reason". If the existence of God is impossible to prove or disprove, it is precisely because it is not a belief which falls within the realm of logic or science.

That is not the case. Christianity is very logical indeed, internally. It is true that one has to accept certain basics before its logical structure is built. Imv, Jesus is not called the 'Logos' for nothing.

People very often become Christians because they see a personal difference in a Christian, one that leads them to trust him or her, and to want to become like that person.

Of course, but many more people become Christians because they are born into a Christian family.

So one gets faith simply by being born? What category of faith do such people have?

Faith does not need to be non-rational; in fact it is likely to be heretical if it is non-rational. There is a big difference between the rational and what can be proved in formal logic.

It's not only formal or informal logic. It's also evidence. Religious faith is commonly defined as belief in the absence of evidence

In which reference work may I find this view?

[Cathar1950]

I am still into faithfulness as opposed to faith.
But that just might be an anabaptist predjudice i aquired.
Tilia wrote:

Doctrines are not faith; they are formers of faith, and results of faith. Correct doctrines are very rational (and heresies are always irrational).

That is an opinion. Heresies are usually against the orthodox view they could very well be rational and those with correct doctrine could be very irrational which is not to be confused with non-rational.
Tilia wrote:

That is not the case. Christianity is very logical indeed, internally. It is true that one has to accept certain basics before its logical structure is built. Imv, Jesus is not called the 'Logos' for nothing.

Another opinion. There are questions about the internal logical consistencies of Christianity. Holding that view is a presupposition or a bias
skewing the subject or object.
You know better with your language background that Logos is not the same as logic in the writer John's context. Wisdom would be closer.
It also had a lot of other connotations and a rich history of the use.

[Cephus]

Personal opinions about sufficiency are not relevant. The claim made was that Scripture is not support, which is presumably now withdrawn.

Alright, how about the Bible is not ADEQUATE support for these claims? After all, the Vedas support Hindu claims but most Christians wouldn't acknowledge that it makes these claims true. Just because a biased book that cannot be proven true supports a claim doesn't mean that the claim is real, valid or correct.

[Cathar1950]

Tilia wrote:
Personal opinions about sufficiency are not relevant. The claim made was that Scripture is not support, which is presumably now withdrawn.

I would think that personal opinions about sufficiency are relevant to the person holding them. They may not be logical and might even be irrational but sufficient for the individual holding them. A paranoid schizophrenic sees the world as logical, we just think they are weird.
Scripture maybe support for the believer beyond that it is limited.
Any one who thinks it is perfectly coherent and has no mistakes, errors
or inconsistencies either has not read it or is in denial. How could any rational person say that about anything except maybe God and there are questions raised about God all the time.
Cephus wrote:

Alright, how about the Bible is not ADEQUATE support for these claims? After all, the Vedas support Hindu claims but most Christians wouldn't acknowledge that it makes these claims true. Just because a biased book that cannot be proven true supports a claim doesn't mean that the claim is real, valid or correct

Cephus makes an excellent point here. Some one who says that beliefs must be bible based has limited their base of knowledge and will find themselves in a never ending apologetics. It seems their choice of the Bible is arbitrary and conditioned. I guess they should be happy they were not raised in a Hindu culture.

[Dilettante]

Tilia wrote:

Personal opinions about sufficiency are not relevant. The claim made was that Scripture is not support, which is presumably now withdrawn.

Yes and no. It is the kind of support which is accepted by those already convinced, but I'm afraid the unconvinced would not consider it enough. Do you consider the Book of Mormon to be adequate support for Mormonism? Probably not, and you would be totally justified in asking for some independent evidence.

That is a true logical impossibility. God cannot be 'in two places at the same time', if in one 'existence' there is neither place nor time.

Exactly... the paradox is right there.

That is not the case; it may be knowledge.

How can it be knowledge? If it were, objective evidence for it would be available. Many who sincerely seek God can't find that evidence.

It cannot be proved to be not the view of the supreme being and creator of all things, and certainly cannot be proved to be illogical.

No, because it can't be stated in clear enough terms.

It cannot be irrational, if God's existence cannot be disproved.

But you forget it can't be proved either (so it cannot be fully rational either). If a belief is rational, there must be some good reasons to believe it, reasons of the kind acceptable to any rational person.

If there is no evidence whatsoever for alien control of senators, I would say it is not a rationally justified belief. How could it be rational?

Because it does not conflict with the laws of reason; it may even be true, or become true.

Apart from logical impossibility, there's also physical impossibility. Some of the most basic Christian tenets involve a physical impossibility, such as the virgin birth.

Solipsism probably is logically unassailable (except that it complicates things unnecessarily, flying in the face of Occam's razor), but I can think of experiments which would prove it incorrect.

What are they?

G.K. Chesterton describes one in the story "The Crime of Gabriel Gale". A solipsist is proved wrong by being pinned to a tree with a pitchfork. Since he could not free himself by altering his mind, he became convinced that the external world was real and independent from him.

Everything about real Christianity has reason as a basis.

Can you explain that? As far as I know, the Incarnation, the virgin birth, and the resurrection (among other dogmas) are to be taken on faith, believed even if one cannot understand them.

Very few human endeavors get close to being that rational.

Very few serious ones don't get close. Engineers, scientists, politicians, businessmen, even artists use rationality, or fail. Imv, Christianity has survived in an increasingly rational world because it is rationally impeccable, if not compelling, as well as being spiritually persuasive. Many find it the best explanation of existence, as well as of enormous practical value.

You are talking about an elite, while I was referring to the general public. I never denied the rational element in Christianity, I just pointed out that it's not all based on reason. Neither how many people find it a good explanation of existence nor its practical value really help in deciding whether it is correct. The value of a religion is in its truthfulness rather than its usefulness (although it would be the icing on the cake of course).

Christianity is very logical indeed, internally. It is true that one has to accept certain basics before its logical structure is built. Imv, Jesus is not called the 'Logos' for nothing.

Yes, but those basics are precisely what's considered to be beyond reason.

People very often become Christians because they see a personal difference in a Christian, one that leads them to trust him or her, and to want to become like that person.

Again, that doesn't help one decide whether its main tenets are true or not. If I see a personal difference in an atheist, should I become one too? Individual behavior should not be decisive. It's like those people who hate Christianity because of what a Christian did to them. It's not a good reason to adopt a philosophy.

So one gets faith simply by being born? What category of faith do such people have?

Admittedly, it's not a very good kind of faith, but it's very common.

It's not only formal or informal logic. It's also evidence. Religious faith is commonly defined as belief in the absence of evidence

In which reference work may I find this view?

[/quote]
Paul the Apostle himself says that faith is "the conviction of things not seen".

[Cathar1950]

Very few serious ones don't get close. Engineers, scientists, politicians, businessmen, even artists use rationality, or fail. Imv, Christianity has survived in an increasingly rational world because it is rationally impeccable, if not compelling, as well as being spiritually persuasive. Many find it the best explanation of existence, as well as of enormous practical value.

Astrology has been around a long time and some think it has enormous practical value and pay for it.
Christianity's survival has to do with a lot of variables.

because it is rationally impeccable, if not compelling, as well as being spiritually persuasive.

This is clearly a bias and not supported historically.
Dilettante wrote:

The value of a religion is in its truthfulness rather than its usefulness (although it would be the icing on the cake of course).

I would agree with you on this but I am afraid Christianity's usefulness has more to do with it's survival. Constantine would be a good example.

[Tilia]

quote="Dilettante"Tilia wrote:

Personal opinions about sufficiency are not relevant. The claim made was that Scripture is not support, which is presumably now withdrawn.

Yes and no. It is the kind of support which is accepted by those already convinced, but I'm afraid the unconvinced would not consider it enough.

Can you prove that?

Do you consider the Book of Mormon to be adequate support for Mormonism?

The word 'adequate' did not occur in your claim.

That is a true logical impossibility. God cannot be 'in two places at the same time', if in one 'existence' there is neither place nor time.

Exactly... the paradox is right there.

There is no paradox. There is a simple logical contradiction in the statement you made, and there is no objection even possible on this ground.

That is not the case; it may be knowledge.

How can it be knowledge?

It may be true.

If it were, objective evidence for it would be available.

Objective evidence is available. I have quoted it.

It cannot be proved to be not the view of the supreme being and creator of all things, and certainly cannot be proved to be illogical.

No, because it can't be stated in clear enough terms.

It can. One simply uses definite language, such as that quoted.

It cannot be irrational, if God's existence cannot be disproved.

But you forget it can't be proved either

You forget that it cannot be proved by formal logic. There is precious little in ordinary experience that can be proved that way. Proof is evidence that convinces, and that varies from person to person, both in terms of experience of evidences applied, and in criteria of proof used by the judges of those evidences.

Everything about real Christianity has reason as a basis.

Can you explain that? As far as I know, the Incarnation, the virgin birth, and the resurrection (among other dogmas) are to be taken on faith, believed even if one cannot understand them.

If one could understand them there would be no purpose to them. The purpose of a miracle is to show supernatural power.

Very few human endeavors get close to being that rational.

Very few serious ones don't get close. Engineers, scientists, politicians, businessmen, even artists use rationality, or fail. Imv, Christianity has survived in an increasingly rational world because it is rationally impeccable, if not compelling, as well as being spiritually persuasive. Many find it the best explanation of existence, as well as of enormous practical value.

You are talking about an elite, while I was referring to the general public.

The general public use rationality at least as much as any elite. Being close to poverty can concentrate the mind rather well, while a rich man can indulge follies without much fear of consequent difficulty.

I never denied the rational element in Christianity, I just pointed out that it's not all based on reason.

It is a bit of familiar nonsense passed around that Christian faith is 'a leap in the dark'. It is nothing of the sort. One cannot become a Christian unless one is deeply convicted of one's sins, and that the cross of Christ is the solution to that conviction. Those who do not believe that God exists in Christ never get as far as faith. Christian faith is a walk into the light, and in the light.

Christianity is very logical indeed, internally. It is true that one has to accept certain basics before its logical structure is built. Imv, Jesus is not called the 'Logos' for nothing.

Yes, but those basics are precisely what's considered to be beyond reason.

Falsely, if so.

People very often become Christians because they see a personal difference in a Christian, one that leads them to trust him or her, and to want to become like that person.

Again, that doesn't help one decide whether its main tenets are true or not.

Of course it does; it is the proof of the pudding. Christ wants deeds, not words, and said so.

If I see a personal difference in an atheist, should I become one too?

Why not?

Individual behavior should not be decisive. It's like those people who hate Christianity because of what a Christian did to them. It's not a good reason to adopt a philosophy.

So when a Christian feeds the hungry, cares for the sick, goes the second mile, turns the other cheek, one should not even wonder what motivates him or her?

So one gets faith simply by being born? What category of faith do such people have?

Admittedly, it's not a very good kind of faith, but it's very common.

How is this sort of faith passed on? By genetic material, or extra-nuclear?

It's not only formal or informal logic. It's also evidence. Religious faith is commonly defined as belief in the absence of evidence

In which reference work may I find this view?

Paul the Apostle himself says that faith is "the conviction of things not seen".

The preposition there is 'of', not 'in'. Faith is the evidence in this sentence, not the result of evidence or its lack.