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.)

[juliod]

Is belief in the Christian God a rational belief?

No! It's a form of irrationalism.

It's a question of whether there is good reason to believe. For christianity (theism in general IMHO) there are no good reasons.

There are at least several really strong arguments against christianity (The Problem of Evil, the Free-Will/Omniscience Paradox). The main christian prophesy (the return of Jesus) didn't happen, and it's getting a bit late, I think. And of course there is no actual evidence of any sort in favor of the religion.

So, christians believe not because the religion seems true, but for some other reason (social pressure, comfort, upbringing, whatever). In other words, they are irrational.

DanZ

[harvey1]

It's a question of whether there is good reason to believe. For christianity (theism in general IMHO) there are no good reasons.

For the discussion of the rationality of theism, there's another thread dedicated to this topic. I'd like to hear your response to my arguments if you care to participate there.

There are at least several really strong arguments against christianity (The Problem of Evil, the Free-Will/Omniscience Paradox). The main christian prophesy (the return of Jesus) didn't happen, and it's getting a bit late, I think. And of course there is no actual evidence of any sort in favor of the religion. So, christians believe not because the religion seems true, but for some other reason (social pressure, comfort, upbringing, whatever). In other words, they are irrational.

Okay, let's take these one by one:

The Problem of Evil

The problem of evil only is a problem because there is an immense amount of good in the world which makes us realize that there is evil in the world. Afterall, if there were too much evil, life wouldn't be possible. In addition, if there weren't enough evil, natural selection wouldn't be possible either. However, let's discuss the PoE in this thread here.

Free-Will/Omniscience Paradox

Theodore M. Drange has formulated this argument as follows:

1. If God exists, then he is omniscient.
2. If God exists, then he is free.
3. An omniscient being must know exactly what actions he will and will not do in the future.
4. If one knows that he will do an action, then it is impossible for him not to do it, and if one knows that he will not do an action, then it is impossible for him to do it.
5. Thus, whatever an omniscient being does, he must do, and whatever he does not do, he cannot do (from 3 and 4).
6. To be free requires having options open, which means having the ability to act contrary to the way one actually acts.
7. So, if one is free, then he does not have to do what he actually does, and he is able to do things that he does not actually do (from 6).
8. Hence, it is impossible for an omniscient being to be free (from 5 and 7).
9. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 8 ).

The above argument is faulty. For example, (6) says, "free requires... having the ability to act contrary to the way one actually acts." That doesn't make any sense since whatever way one acts contrary must be the way they act otherwise why are they acting that way? The type of person you are defines what you would do in every possible situation, otherwise it is impossible for you to act as you. You would be someone else acting as you, which would conflict with what it means to be you. Similarly, God acts as the God being does, is, and will act in all the decisions that God faces. Omniscience does not affect this situation.

return of Jesus

This event refers to the end of the age, which obviously hasn't happened yet. However, you seem in a hurry for it. I would be relunctant to want to see the things that are supposed to accompany an apocalypse, but certainly we are closer to this event from a pure weapons perspective. Let's hope there is no end of the age within the foreseeable future!

And of course there is no actual evidence of any sort in favor of the religion.

Before we discuss this issue, I suppose we need to know what is a definition of rationality. If you think that irrationality is believing merely in the lack of evidence, then there's a slew of atheist beliefs that fit this category (e.g., multiverse, belief that design comes only from random or natural processes, etc.).

[Lotan]

Is belief in the Christian God a rational belief?

Which one? Father, Son, or Holy Ghost?

[Curious]

Theodore M. Drange has formulated this argument as follows:

1. If God exists, then he is omniscient.
2. If God exists, then he is free.
3. An omniscient being must know exactly what actions he will and will not do in the future.
4. If one knows that he will do an action, then it is impossible for him not to do it, and if one knows that he will not do an action, then it is impossible for him to do it.
5. Thus, whatever an omniscient being does, he must do, and whatever he does not do, he cannot do (from 3 and 4).
6. To be free requires having options open, which means having the ability to act contrary to the way one actually acts.
7. So, if one is free, then he does not have to do what he actually does, and he is able to do things that he does not actually do (from 6).
8. Hence, it is impossible for an omniscient being to be free (from 5 and 7).
9. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 8 ).

The above argument is faulty. For example, (6) says, "free requires... having the ability to act contrary to the way one actually acts." That doesn't make any sense since whatever way one acts contrary must be the way they act otherwise why are they acting that way? The type of person you are defines what you would do in every possible situation, otherwise it is impossible for you to act as you. You would be someone else acting as you, which would conflict with what it means to be you. Similarly, God acts as the God being does, is, and will act in all the decisions that God faces. Omniscience does not affect this situation.

You are quite right Harvey1. This is exactly the kind of logically inconsistent argument that is often used in an attempt to disprove the existence of God. To suggest that God's knowledge of his actions would make it impossible to do otherwise and therefore mean that God can therefore have no free will is not really something that a rational mind should seriously consider. If God decided not to take such a course of action then the science of it would be different. It is the action that determines the science of the action and is dependent upon the action. The action is in no way determined by the science of it. This is just another attempt to impose a restriction on one property by a property that is completely unrelated. I find it incredible that such tenuous arguments are given such consideration by people who really should think their arguments through a little better ( especially coming from a professor ).

[juliod]

Before we discuss this issue, I suppose we need to know what is a definition of rationality. If you think that irrationality is believing merely in the lack of evidence, then there's a slew of atheist beliefs that fit this category (e.g., multiverse, belief that design comes only from random or natural processes, etc.).

No. You are making "rational" simultaneously too strict and too lenient.

Your view of "atheist" beliefs lacking evidence is entirely wrong. You're confusing evidence with conclusive proof.

A rationalist will generally require good evidence for something before believing in it. In the absense of good evidence, a rationalist will at most say that something is possible. For example, a rationalist might say "it is possible that there are aliens on Pluto". But to say "There are aliens on Pluto" is an expression of irrationalism.

At the same time, a rationalist will disbelieve something if there is good reason to. Hence failed prophesy and the paradoxes I mentioned cut great swathes through theism, and christianity in particular. (I don't want to get into a discussion of those things in this thread, since the subject here is properly about rationalism than the truth of those points.)

Also, when something should be apparent (i.e. have evidence) but does not, then a rationalist will hold that concept up to grave doubt. Religion is in that catagory.

For a rationalist, the presense or absence of evidence, and the particular details of that evidence, is the sole source of opinion about the truth or falsity of claims. Together with an assessment of the reliability of the evidence (e.g. evidence based on introspection or the claims of dubious individuals does not count for much).

So, when you are in a position of believing something that does not have good evidence for it, does have good evidence that it is untrue, and for which there should be copious evidence for it if it were true, then you are obviously believing it for some reason other than reason. Maybe it's because you were taught it as a child, or maybe your social position requires you too, or maybe you are afraid not to.

But whatever the reason is, it is irrational.

Remember, the question of rationalism does not require conclusive proof. It only requires good evidence. It's a fact that christianity lacks good evidence in support of it's claims.

DanZ

[juliod]

Similarly, God acts as the God being does, is, and will act in all the decisions that God faces. Omniscience does not affect this situation.

In which case god is an automaton. Substitute "gravity" for "god" in the sentance above to see it more clearly.

Oops, I didn't mean to get drawn on these issues in this thread.

DanZ

[Curious]

Similarly, God acts as the God being does, is, and will act in all the decisions that God faces. Omniscience does not affect this situation.

In which case god is an automaton. Substitute "gravity" for "god" in the sentance above to see it more clearly.

Oops, I didn't mean to get drawn on these issues in this thread.

DanZ

I really don't understand why you say that God acting as God makes Him an automaton. I act as I act just as you act as you act in all situations. Does this make you an automaton?

[harvey1]

Is belief in the Christian God a rational belief?

Which one? Father, Son, or Holy Ghost?

The ones that caught the last train for the coast...

And the three men I admire most
The Father Son and Holy Ghost
They caught the last train for the coast
The day the music died

They were singin'

Bye, bye miss American Pie
Drove my Chevy to the levee but the levee was dry
And good ol' boys were drinking whisky and rye?
Singing this will be the day that I die
this will be the day that I die

[harvey1]

In which case god is an automaton. Substitute "gravity" for "god" in the sentance above to see it more clearly. Oops, I didn't mean to get drawn on these issues in this thread.

Just as Curious said, having freedom to be you doesn't mean you are an automaton, in fact, being free to be you is what separates you from being an automaton. I might also mention, I have a timeless view of God, so there is no past, present, or future for God to be an automaton with regard to the future. God just is.