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]

NGR,

Let me summarize your post in a couple of paragraphs:

I think God belief is relevant as it is the only evidence(if you could call it that) that we have in connection with a God. When theists are asked why they believe in a God they can provide only emotional based responses that deal with faith... I can only deal with the arguments put forward by those that deal in imaginary concepts and to date I have seen nothing that provides convincing support for a theistic point of view. Indeed it's theists very behaviour with respect to their constructs that shows that they do not have the knowledge they're alleged to possess.... Theists make bold assertions that there is a creator of the Universe that looks over their shoulders attends to their wishes and provides a "special" existence after they die... I don't see any possibility for leprechauns or mermaids either, so why would I assign any special treatment to a mythical God above any other mythical creature?... The God construct continues to be discussed because there is a large proportion of society that have various God beliefs... Rational atheistic minds simply wonder at the silliness of it all... There is simply nothing in support of such conjecture beyond a lot of hand waving and wishful thinking... [W]hen you analyse such [God] beliefs it is clear that people believe not because there is anything to believe in but simply because they need something to believe in. People are entitled to believe in anything they like but if a rational analysis of the beliefs show that they are lacking in any logical substance then there is simply no reason to give a God myth any more thought than any other myths from antiquity... Yet there is no evidence that they are in contact with God and the current crop of theists are in no better position in this regard than the Aztec's who just knew that sacrificing a person each day was required to keep the Sun on its daily journey. Please explain the difference and why one persons beliefs are superior to anyone else's regardless of geographical or temporal displacement?... If theistic claims are clearly nonsense then we can dismiss the focus of their attention, God, as no more than the delusional construct of those seeking guidance and comfort in a harsh world...

As I pointed out earlier in this post cause and God have two different meanings and your efforts to conflate the two is where you wonder off into fantasy land... Theists claim knowledge harvey1. Reflection on the historical insanity of religion shows this "knowledge" to be so much hot air.... You may not be happy with my reasons but I have provided them non the less. In regard to your theistic view I haven't participated in much of the discussions here but from what I have read in some of the threads that you have been active in your arguments seems to boil down to the existence of order in the Universe which you interpret as being something of significance. Your explanations for such beliefs have always been wordy and highly abstract and seemed more aimed at obfuscation than a clear articulation of your position. You have also steered clear of any personal expressions of theism and have referred to theists as though they are some third party group to which you do not belong. It is though you have this distant arms length view of God that is so sterile and theoretical that it would be of little use to an average theist . So no harvey1 you have not provided much of an argument for your position.

Let me respond to these paragraphs:

I think God belief is relevant as it is the only evidence(if you could call it that) that we have in connection with a God. When theists are asked why they believe in a God they can provide only emotional based responses that deal with faith...

If you read theists who are philosophers, you will not see their arguments hinge on emotional based responses. This is what we can and should discuss, philosophical reasons to believe a philosophical belief which atheism is also such a philosophical belief.

Rational atheistic minds simply wonder at the silliness of it all... There is simply nothing in support of such conjecture beyond a lot of hand waving and wishful thinking...

But, even you yourself have admitted, you don't have any real reasons for your atheism other than social studies:

You may not be happy with my reasons but I have provided them non the less.

So, it isn't necessarily rational minds who are wondering at silliness, it is often minds who simply are not keen on producing real evidence for their own belief system. Social studies is not the kind of evidence needed to dismiss a philosophical belief based on philosophical reasons.

from what I have read in some of the threads that you have been active in your arguments seems to boil down to the existence of order in the Universe which you interpret as being something of significance. Your explanations for such beliefs have always been wordy and highly abstract and seemed more aimed at obfuscation than a clear articulation of your position.

In other words, "sounds too complex to talk about philosophical reasons, let's talk about social studies." If you want to talk about social studies, then you are not addressing the real issues on whether theism is rational. Rather, you might be able to address whether religion is rational, but that's another subject as I see it.

Please, NGR, if you have a stance on the rationality of theism, state your case. If you want to cite evidence from social studies, then just say that you are unable to dismiss theism as a philosophical belief. I'm happy with that.

[harvey1]

I would not restrict it to contradiction alone. I would also class a belief in something that is beyond experimental validation as irrational.

Such as present day string theory? Present day beliefs on multiverses? I disagree, of course.

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

And, yet, we still don't have an explanation of materialistic cause being provided. Once we follow your line of logic down to the materialist nth degree, we see the fallacy of materialism. If you give up your materialism, as you should, then the phrase "everything passes" begins to look less and less certain.

[QED]

I would not restrict it to contradiction alone. I would also class a belief in something that is beyond experimental validation as irrational.

Such as present day string theory? Present day beliefs on multiverses? I disagree, of course.

Yes, of course I agree that it would be irrational to cite string theory or multiverses as fact in the absence of experimental validation, but those things are not beyond validation in principle. I think it's fair to say that the same is not true of the Afterlife.

And, yet, we still don't have an explanation of materialistic cause being provided. Once we follow your line of logic down to the materialist nth degree, we see the fallacy of materialism. If you give up your materialism, as you should, then the phrase "everything passes" begins to look less and less certain.

Oh I see. Because the material realist hasn't (yet) figured out something going on deep in the heart of the micro-world, we must assume that this is where lies the key to the kingdom of heaven. Now please explain to me and any number of fascinated earwiggers how this is so. You see, you have to have reasons for thinking that the Afterlife exists otherwise you are being irrational. And while you're coming up with these reasons you better explain why there is a cut-off point whereby some species are allowed into the kingdom while others are not. What about AI system -- do these qualify or not? What is the essential difference that singles out some things from others?

[harvey1]

Yes, of course I agree that it would be irrational to cite string theory or multiverses as fact in the absence of experimental validation, but those things are not beyond validation in principle. I think it's fair to say that the same is not true of the Afterlife.

If one were to die and find out they have an afterlife, then it's not so invalidated, is it? But, of course, you mean prior to that point, right? Well, I can think of many things that are not validatable by experiment which we would consider rational. For example, I think the existence of other people is certainly beyond validation, we really could be in a Matrix, but it would be rational to believe in other people. I think you've taken a positivist view here, and it's not helping you in deducing rationality from irrationality.

...the material realist hasn't (yet) figured out something going on deep in the heart of the micro-world, [therefore] we must assume that this is where lies the key to the kingdom of heaven.

It's not about figuring this out. It's about the material realist admitting that their model does not work and they should junk it like we do with most beliefs that conceptually do not work. Once we move beyond the materialist model, then we can get closer to the real causes in our natural world and the answers, not surprisingly, are entirely different ones than the materialist view provides. That's what it means for a view to be wrong. If you are drastically wrong, then you are drastically surprised by how wrong you are because the real answer isn't anything like you expected under your wrong perspective.

Now please explain to me and any number of fascinated earwiggers how this is so. You see, you have to have reasons for thinking that the Afterlife exists otherwise you are being irrational. And while you're coming up with these reasons you better explain why there is a cut-off point whereby some species are allowed into the kingdom while others are not. What about AI system -- do these qualify or not? What is the essential difference that singles out some things from others?

Last post you focused on evil and this post you are focusing on the afterlife? However, this thread is talking about theism being rational or not. Not all theists believe in an afterlife, just like not all theists believe that God must be all-good. So, rather than drift off the topic with those other interesting topics, why don't you pose an objection to theism that relates to this thread? Why is theism irrational now that even you are admitting that conceptually you have no answer to explain material cause? Why isn't it the other way around since nomic laws do have a conceptual solution for cause? It seems that logic should drive you to accept it, but you won't budge. This is why I find it so hard not to engage in rhetoric since reasons seem like they fall on deaf ears. I know I shouldn't fall to that temptation, but geez, I'm hearing crickets when I ask for reasons as to why theism should be considered irrational in light of the answers from atheism.

[QED]

Harvey1, the reason I'm casting a spotlight on these issues is because they are all part of the irrational religious belief system. Theists generally subscribe to this system and it's no good pointing out to me that some may not believe in this particular thing or that particular thing. Your initial question was not qualified, therefore I took it to refer to the general theist. I recall that you count yourself as a Christian and we are debating on Christian forums so I have framed my response accordingly.

Of course you might want to tell me that you don't buy into any of the usual beliefs, but I do know that you believe that god is all-good for example. And I would like to you to reply to my question asking how you can be so positive about this.

If one were to die and find out they have an afterlife, then it's not so invalidated, is it? But, of course, you mean prior to that point, right? Well, I can think of many things that are not validatable by experiment which we would consider rational. For example, I think the existence of other people is certainly beyond validation, we really could be in a Matrix, but it would be rational to believe in other people.

I actually thought that the Brain In a Vat issue had been resolved in philosophy, but it strikes me as being impotent anyway as it envelops all considerations that we might choose to make. I would be much more impressed if you could offer some other examples for comparison with the question of an afterlife.

I'm sorry if I seem to be stubborn about this interesting issue, but you have posed a question about causality that I do not even know is valid (however I do know that the concept of causality is blurred at shorter than Planck time-scales and this smearing of cause and effect could be giving rise to some of the quantum paradoxes) However, you started this topic asking if it is rational to be a theist and I am simply pointing out that the whole structure of theism (as you practice it) is built on a number of irrational foundations.

You appear to be referring to some form of pure theism (whatever that might be) in this debate, but without proper definitions we're bound to have problems. And what is the parallel with atheism I wonder? We know that theists have a wide range of different beliefs which is why we might need to consider pure theism. I suggest that in the end this would rule out a personal god leaving only pantheism for consideration. Not much use to you I suspect.

[Curious]

.
You appear to be referring to some form of pure theism (whatever that might be) in this debate, but without proper definitions we're bound to have problems. And what is the parallel with atheism I wonder? We know that theists have a wide range of different beliefs which is why we might need to consider pure theism. I suggest that in the end this would rule out a personal god leaving only pantheism for consideration. Not much use to you I suspect.

But surely as the "god experience" of the majority of theists in this forum is of a purely personal nature, would it not be "irrational" to believe that such a god, if it existed, was wholly impersonal?

[harvey1]

Hi QED,

Your initial question was not qualified, therefore I took it to refer to the general theist... You appear to be referring to some form of pure theism (whatever that might be) in this debate, but without proper definitions we're bound to have problems. And what is the parallel with atheism I wonder? We know that theists have a wide range of different beliefs which is why we might need to consider pure theism. I suggest that in the end this would rule out a personal god leaving only pantheism for consideration. Not much use to you I suspect.

Okay, I'm relieved to hear that you think theism itself is a rational belief, but you consider a typical Western religious belief of God to be irrational. For that topic, I thought it would be good if we had another thread in the Christianity sub-forum. Please link here and we can discuss this other interesting topic with all the mess I'm sure that topic will generate.

I'm sorry if I seem to be stubborn about this interesting issue, but you have posed a question about causality that I do not even know is valid (however I do know that the concept of causality is blurred at shorter than Planck time-scales and this smearing of cause and effect could be giving rise to some of the quantum paradoxes).

Okay, so does that mean we can conclude this topic that currently atheism is not to be considered rational and therefore has no leg on which to condemn theism? I like the conclusion and I'm ready to leave this thread with this conclusion tightly in place. I hope I haven't misunderstood you along these lines. If so, then please give me reasons to show that we should come to a different conclusion here as it pertains to theism as it is generally understood (i.e., a belief in God).

[Curious]

Okay, so does that mean we can conclude this topic that currently atheism is not to be considered rational and therefore has no leg on which to condemn theism? I like the conclusion and I'm ready to leave this thread with this conclusion tightly in place. I hope I haven't misunderstood you along these lines. If so, then please give me reasons to show that we should come to a different conclusion here as it pertains to theism as it is generally understood (i.e., a belief in God).

I seriously doubt that QED would consider atheism to be particularly irrational. Isn't it the case that there can be two diametrically opposed conclusions to an argument that are both rational in formulation. The very fact that the atheist tends to use one set of data for analysis and the theist uses another is a very strong argument for the rationality of both. It is more appropriate, I think, to ask whether it is rational to argue whether one or the other is right while ignoring either set of data. At least the theist might attempt to incorporate the data of the atheist into their own analysis but it seems that much theistic "data" is considered to be no data at all by the atheist.

[harvey1]

I seriously doubt that QED would consider atheism to be particularly irrational. Isn't it the case that there can be two diametrically opposed conclusions to an argument that are both rational in formulation.

Looking at QED's post again, I might have misread it. When I read the first time I thought that he was basically admitting that causation for a materialist was irrational, but he might have meant to use a different definition for rationality. So far, the only definition he provided was a verificationalist definition, but I don't think that would apply to atheism since it isn't verified either. I thought he might agree that contradictions in one's conceptual understanding would make it irrational, but you are right, QED might have a different view. So, let me hear what he has to say. Thanks for your input.

[QED]

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! For starters you seem to have managed to get from here:

Your initial question was not qualified, therefore I took it to refer to the general theist... You appear to be referring to some form of pure theism (whatever that might be) in this debate, but without proper definitions we're bound to have problems. And what is the parallel with atheism I wonder? We know that theists have a wide range of different beliefs which is why we might need to consider pure theism. I suggest that in the end this would rule out a personal god leaving only pantheism for consideration. Not much use to you I suspect.

To here:

Okay, I'm relieved to hear that you think theism itself is a rational belief, but you consider a typical Western religious belief of God to be irrational. For that topic, I thought it would be good if we had another thread in the Christianity sub-forum. Please link here and we can discuss this other interesting topic with all the mess I'm sure that topic will generate.

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'.

I'm sorry if I seem to be stubborn about this interesting issue, but you have posed a question about causality that I do not even know is valid (however I do know that the concept of causality is blurred at shorter than Planck time-scales and this smearing of cause and effect could be giving rise to some of the quantum paradoxes).

Okay, so does that mean we can conclude this topic that currently atheism is not to be considered rational and therefore has no leg on which to condemn theism?

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? 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.

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