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]

Dilettante:

Quote:
Yes and no. It is the kind of support which is accepted only by those already convinced, but I'm afraid the unconvinced would not consider it enough.
Tilia: Can you prove that?

There are many in this forum who have read the Bible and yet remain unconvinced. Do you need names?As Cephus wrote, there's a sacred text to support almost every religion. And something which can support any opinion really supports none.

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

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

My mistake then. I took it for granted (I meant "adequate"). I'll rephrase the question now: Do you consider the Book of Mormon adequate support for Mormonism?

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.

"Immanent" and "trascendent" are opposites. It's the same paradox as saying something is both finite and infinite. In addition, if God's mode of existence is precisely our mode of non-existence (we exist in space-time) the paradoxes keep piling up.

Quote:
How can it be knowledge?

It may be true.

That doesn't make it knowledge. If I believe that it's raining in Hong Kong right now, and it turns out that it is, that doesn't mean I knew it. It could have been a lucky guess.

Objective evidence is available. I have quoted it.

I'm afraid I missed that. Can you please redirect me?

Quote:
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, i.e., 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.

That's an interesting view. Why did God perform so many miracles in the past and why isn't He doing the same now? How can something we can't even hope to understand be based on reason? How do you define miracles?

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.

If you survey the general population you will see that irrationalism is thriving. Astrologers, psychics and New Age gurus are not about to go out of business anytime soon. However, you're probably right that I was too generous attributing rational decisions to the elite. It's easy to find examples of intelligent personalities being totally unreasonable, especially outside their field of expertise. I don't see any connection between financial status and rationality. Have you studied the issue carefully?

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.

I don't particularly like those "dark/light" metaphors either. They tend to be too emotional. I prefer to use "based on reason" or "based on faith". But it's a peculiar thing what you wrote: the idea that one has to believe in order to have faith strikes me as circular or tautological. Where does reason come into the picture?

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

Falsely, if so.

Are you saying that there is rational explanation for things like the virgin birth, the resurrection or the Incarnation? If so, I want to hear it as soon as possible.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

You're quite wrong about that. What is beneficial is not necessarily true. Belief in a just God would motivate people to do good even if such a God did not exist. Trustworthy, law-abiding, morally upright citizens can be found who hold a variety of religious beliefs (and even without any religious beliefs). Since not all of them can be correct about God, it is clear that their behavior tells us nothing about the truth of their beliefs. No matter how good you are, if Christianity is not true, it will earn you no prizes after death. As Paul the apostle said, "if Chrsit has not risen, your faith is futile".

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?

One can wonder, but they're two separate issues (what's right morally and what's right metaphisically). Or is it the case that when a Christian commits an evil act (burning a heretic or bombing an abortion clinic) Christianity is then proved false? I don't think so, do you?
Now, to avoid the fallacy of equivocation, please stick to one meaning of the word Christian (namely the one defining Christian an a believer in Jesus). If your answer is that whoever commits an evil act is not a "real Christian" (therefore using "Christian" as a synonym for "good") you will be switching meanings in mid-argument, which is not fair. "All Christianpeople are good" then means the same as "all good people are good", which is a tautology and offers no information.

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

It is environmental. I agree it's not serious faith if you have not thought about it hard, but are just pleasing your family. That kind of faith dissolves quickly if the environment changes.

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

I don't understand. What kind of evidence is that? One cannot simply decide to believe something. Are you saying it's a divine gift only some people receive?
Anyway, here's another quote, this time the alleged words of Jesus:
"Because you have seen me you have believed... blessed are those who have not seen and yet believed"(John 20:29) That tells me the best kind of faith is believing in what you have not seen (i.e., without evidence).

[Tilia]

quote="Dilettante"

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

Tilia: Can you prove that?

There are many in this forum who have read the Bible and yet remain unconvinced.

That might be the case. It may be that everyone in this forum is convinced that the Bible is the truth. Or, it may be that everyone in this forum is convinced that it is not the truth. This proves nothing. I repeat: can you prove that?

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

My mistake then.

That's ok.

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.

"Immanent" and "trascendent" are opposites.

Perhaps; but are they mutually exclusive?

It's the same paradox as saying something is both finite and infinite.

Those are mutually exclusive, but God is not infinite; otherwise we would not be here.

Quote:
How can it be knowledge?

It may be true.

That doesn't make it knowledge.

I didn't say it was knowledge.

Objective evidence is available. I have quoted it.

I'm afraid I missed that. Can you please redirect me?

'"Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshippers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshippers must worship in spirit and in truth." (John 4:23-24 NIV)

How can something we can't even hope to understand be based on reason?

A miracle indicates the supernatural, and that is its purpose.

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.

the idea that one has to believe in order to have faith strikes me as circular or tautological.

Is there anything circular about what I wrote?

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

Falsely, if so.

Are you saying that there is rational explanation for things like the virgin birth, the resurrection or the Incarnation? If so, I want to hear it as soon as possible.

If the supernatural occurs, it is evidence for a being/beings beyond nature.

Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.

You're quite wrong about that. What is beneficial is not necessarily true.

Lack of the beneficial can be taken as evidence that Christianity is not true.

Trustworthy, law-abiding, morally upright citizens can be found who hold a variety of religious beliefs (and even without any religious beliefs). Since not all of them can be correct about God, it is clear that their behavior tells us nothing about the truth of their beliefs.

Trustworthiness and uprightness may be very variable in extent, and more apparent than real. The Christian position is in effect that all virtue other than that of the born again is social veneer.

As Paul the apostle said, "if Chrsit has not risen, your faith is futile".

Indeed he did; but disproof that Christ did not rise has not been made. Many become Christians using the rationale that if person X can be changed for the good, so can self.

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?

One can wonder

OK, so what is the point in wondering that, if one cannot also consider that Christianity has a sound basis for belief?

Or is it the case that when a Christian commits an evil act (burning a heretic or bombing an abortion clinic) Christianity is then proved false?

Burning people or bombing others' property is itself, by Christianity, heresy; and people recognise that. They become Christians because they see that those who actually follow what Christ says are re-motivated and are changed for the better.

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

It is environmental. I agree it's not serious faith if you have not thought about it hard, but are just pleasing your family.

Then that is faith in family, not in Christ.

That kind of faith dissolves quickly if the environment changes.

Indeed it does.

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

What kind of evidence is that?

The writer of Hebrews cited the presence of active faith as evidence of unseen things, as it does today.

[Cathar1950]

Quote:
Objective evidence is available. I have quoted it.

Quote:
I'm afraid I missed that. Can you please redirect me?

Tilia wrote in response for objective evidence:
'"

Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshippers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshippers must worship in spirit and in truth." (John 4:23-24 NIV)

That is what you call objective evidence?
I think Dilettante made a good call

Quote:
the idea that one has to believe in order to have faith strikes me as circular or tautological

.
Tilia wrote:

Is there anything circular about what I wrote?

You mean you don't see it?
Then you top it all off with more scripture(your objective evidence).

The writer of Hebrews cited the presence of active faith as evidence of unseen things, as it does today.

At least you didn't tell us Paul wrote it.

[Dilettante]

Tilia wrote:

That might be the case. It may be that everyone in this forum is convinced that the Bible is the truth. Or, it may be that everyone in this forum is convinced that it is not the truth. This proves nothing. I repeat: can you prove that?

If you're asking me if I can prove that some people in the forum have read the Bible but have not been convinced by it, all I can do is ask them. Here's my question for all forum members: Have any of you read the Bible and found it not convincing?
Another thing we could do is start a thread in the discussion subforums. I am sure many people would reply.

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.

"Immanent" and "trascendent" are opposites.

Perhaps; but are they mutually exclusive?

Those are mutually exclusive, but God is not infinite; otherwise we would not be here.

I thought that the Christian God was supposed to be infinite. At least that's what most Christians have maintained through the centuries.

I didn't say it was knowledge.

No, but you said it could be. You need to show how.

'"Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshippers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshippers must worship in spirit and in truth." (John 4:23-24 NIV)

How is that objective evidence? That's Scripture. I thought we had agreed that every religion has some sort of scripture to support it, and that something which supports all religions supports none.

A miracle indicates the supernatural, and that is its purpose.

Not everyone believes that a miracle suspends the laws of nature. Aquinas said that miracles do not contradict the laws of nature, but only our knowledge of those laws.

Is there anything circular about what I wrote?

I believe there is: faith as a requirement to more faith.

If the supernatural occurs, it is evidence for a being/beings beyond nature.

And what kind of evidence could we obtain to adequately authenticate those miracles?

Lack of the beneficial can be taken as evidence that Christianity is not true.

I really don't see the connection there. It could be evidence of backsliding among Chrsitains, or of a number of other things. And a false religion could be effective in keeping people in line so long as they believed in it.

Trustworthiness and uprightness may be very variable in extent, and more apparent than real. The Christian position is in effect that all virtue other than that of the born again is social veneer.

And how do you know that? Others believe that Christian virtue is not genuine, that it is merely motivated by fear of eternal damnation. I prefer not to judge people's motives.

Indeed he did; but disproof that Christ did not rise has not been made.

I would think the burden of proof rests with those making the claim that he did rise. Are you making an appeal to ignorance? Should we believe everything which has not been disproved?

Many become Christians using the rationale that if person X can be changed for the good, so can self.

OK, but that won't tell them whether the Christian God is real or not. A belief can influence one's behavior even if false, as long as one believes it to be true.

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?

One can wonder

OK, so what is the point in wondering that, if one cannot also consider that Christianity has a sound basis for belief?

I know a worker who was a Marxist and sacrificed to help a lot of people. However, I know for a fact that Marxism is a bad economic and political theory, and that its predictions failed miserably.

Or is it the case that when a Christian commits an evil act (burning a heretic or bombing an abortion clinic) Christianity is then proved false?

Burning people or bombing others' property is itself, by Christianity, heresy; and people recognise that. They become Christians because they see that those who actually follow what Christ says are re-motivated and are changed for the better.

I think here we are slipping into equivocation. People who believe in the divinity of Jesus have, nevertheless, been known to committ crimes.

The writer of Hebrews cited the presence of active faith as evidence of unseen things, as it does today.

And what about Jesus saying that those who believe without evidence are the ones to be praised?

[Tilia]

quote="Dilettante

Those are mutually exclusive, but God is not infinite; otherwise we would not be here.

I thought that the Christian God was supposed to be infinite.

You were wrong, then.

Is there anything circular about what I wrote?

I believe there is: faith as a requirement to more faith.

That's not circular, it's linear.

Indeed he did; but disproof that Christ did not rise has not been made.

I would think the burden of proof rests with those making the claim that he did rise.

Who's making a claim?

Many become Christians using the rationale that if person X can be changed for the good, so can self.

OK, but that won't tell them whether the Christian God is real or not.

The question is not about reality, but rationality. It seems to me that the case against fell some time ago.

[Cathar1950]

I am a Theist of sorts.
Mostly because I am not an Atheist. I don't know enough to not belive in some kind of higher being or connectiveness of the universe.
My background is Christian but I have a Jewish bent.
i see the same problems in OT as I do the NT. They are inventions.
I don't not mean that they have no merit. From what I have gathered Christianity lost some of it's Jewish roots by making Jesus God. The Virgin birth makes no sense and seems to come from a misreading and mistranslation that the writer of Matt. used to prove what he already believed to other believers.

Quote:
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?

This Ideal comes right out of the prophets it is not unique to Christianity.
I have seen Atheist do the same things because of their love of humanity
and the pain of watching others suffer..

Quote:
Indeed he did; but disproof that Christ did not rise has not been made.

Actually there are some Christians who do not believed that Jesus rose from the dead bodily. Paul may have been one of them. He saw the Spirit Christ and assumed others did(witnesses) also.
Paul thought that Jesus was born of human parents and may have sited so to dispell stories that were going around that he was fathered by God.
So in answer to you question.

Here's my question for all forum members: Have any of you read the Bible and found it not convincing?

I would say I don't find it convincing.
But I find it interesting. I don't see it as a impecable guide to anything.
Once you understand it's formation historically I think you can appreciate it's richness and variety.
The claims that are often made about it are beyond reasonable and almost silly.
It often seems to replace God reverence and perfection if you go by some peoples claims about it.
Some people read it all the time and can never find anything wrong with it or any error or mistake. I find that rather strange and an unreasonable expectation.

[bernee51]

Is there anything circular about what I wrote?

I believe there is: faith as a requirement to more faith.

That's not circular, it's linear.

Yes it is on a line but the line is going in a circle.

Indeed he did; but disproof that Christ did not rise has not been made.

I would think the burden of proof rests with those making the claim that he did rise.

Who's making a claim?

So you believe he didn't resurrect.

The question is not about reality, but rationality. It seems to me that the case against fell some time ago.

Really? The rational case against a christian god fell some time ago? I must have missed something.

[Dilettante]

I thought that the Christian God was supposed to be infinite.

You were wrong, then.

Tilia, I thought we were discussing belief in the Christian God, commonly understood as a superior being who is all-powerful. all-knowing, all good, uncreated, with no beginning or end (therefore infinite), noncorporeal, loving, who created the universe out of nothing and can provide humans with eternal life, and who became human Himself around 4 BC as Jesus the Nazarene. I don't mind if you cross out the Trinitarian element, but if you deny that the Christian God is boundless we may be talking at cross-purposes. We may be talking about different Gods. This thread is about the Christian God, not about your personal theological views.
Anyway, what do you mean the Christian God is not infinite? How do you know? Do you have a Bible verse to support that or is it a logical deduction?

Is there anything circular about what I wrote?

I believe there is: faith as a requirement to more faith.

That's not circular, it's linear.

If you don't recognize that as circular, there's not much I can add.

Who's making a claim?

Christianity as a whole is making the claim that Jesus did rise from the dead. In fact, that is the whole basis of Christianity.

The question is not about reality, but rationality. It seems to me that the case against fell some time ago.

If you are talking about rationality as divorced from reality, you can't deny that most religions have a rationality of sorts. But you cannot prove that the basic tenets of Christianity are based on reason by calling them miracles or mysteries. Reason wants to solve mysteries.

[Tilia]

I thought that the Christian God was supposed to be infinite.

You were wrong, then.

Tilia, I thought we were discussing belief in the Christian God

The Christian God created. He cannot therefore be infinite.

Is there anything circular about what I wrote?

I believe there is: faith as a requirement to more faith.

That's not circular, it's linear.

If you don't recognize that as circular, there's not much I can add.

True. I don't because it isn't.

Who's making a claim?

Christianity as a whole is making the claim that Jesus did rise from the dead.

Not to anyone who does not want to accept it. Christianity preaches the gospel, and leaves it at that. People can take it or leave it.

The question is not about reality, but rationality. It seems to me that the case against fell some time ago.

If you are talking about rationality as divorced from reality, you can't deny that most religions have a rationality of sorts. But you cannot prove that the basic tenets of Christianity are based on reason by calling them miracles or mysteries. Reason wants to solve mysteries.

It's reasonable to suppose that if there is a deity who created the universe with its laws, he can break those laws to show his identity.

[Dilettante]

Tilia wrote:

The Christian God created. He cannot therefore be infinite.

There is more than one way to interpret the claim that God is infinite (such as "God is infinitely good" or "God's mercy is infinite", etc). Ancient Hebrews did not even dare write the complete name of their God for fear of seeming to be imposing restrictions on him. Anyway, the classical doctrinal statements about the Christian God say he is:

1. Infinite (boundless).
2. Immutable (cannot be made to change).
3. Impassible (cannot be made to suffer).
4. Omnipresent.
5. Omnipotent.
6. Omniscient (all-knowing).
7. Omnibenevolent (all-good, all-loving).

You may reject some or all of these attributes, but that is your personal theology, not the classical Christian God we are discussing.

True. I don't because it isn't.

What you're saying is either that if one has faith, one will continue to have faith (this is obvious and not very informative), or that the only way to arrive at faith is to take a leap of faith in the first place (which assumes what you were arguing for). In either case what you say is tautological because you don't explain how one takes that first leap of faith.

Not to anyone who does not want to accept it. Christianity preaches the gospel, and leaves it at that. People can take it or leave it.

But when you preach you are making a claim to truth. And if Christianity is true, it's a very important one. You would want people to take it seriously.

It's reasonable to suppose that if there is a deity who created the universe with its laws, he can break those laws to show his identity.

Perhaps not. Perhaps those laws, once they come into existence, cannot be broken. A similar argument is that God created the laws of logic and, therefore, can break them if necessary. Or that God created morality and He can change the moral law at will. Both views encounter similar problems.