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.)

[AlAyeti]

The Five O'Clock news does not answer or point to any religious point of view but one.

Even if someone wants to grasp the delusion that the Bible is much allegory, the world is heading towards the type of environment eerily consistent with the Bible "stories."

Interesting how freedoms are being given away freely in the name of security, caused by the most evil actions seen since Nazi Germany. It's as if there was a malevolent force at work against goodness directing the world to violence and the grasping of all manner of evil.

Hmm, you think?

Weren't we told somewhere, recorded from writings in the past, that this was going to happen?

Even long before Nostradamis, I heard there was some myths and legends reportedly supernaturally predeicting these kinds of things.

Rational belief in the Christian God?

I already signed up.

[Tilia]

quote="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).

But no-one is proposing God's goodness or mercy to be finite.

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.

The nub of that matter is that the true leap of faith is not an intellectual one, but a matter of the will; that of committing one's life to Christ and living for Him only. Nobody does that unless they know about the facts of the matter; true, there may be endless debate about whether they are facts, but those who do not have actual faith may also believe in the alleged facts as found in the Bible; and many do so, imv.

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.

Who are you to tell others what their motives should be? Is this clear enough? People can take Christianity, or leave it. That is their own business.

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.

It's not reasonable?

[Dilettante]

AlAyeti wrote:

Even if someone wants to grasp the delusion that the Bible is much allegory, the world is heading towards the type of environment eerily consistent with the Bible "stories."

Could be, but it's also easy to read our own fears into the Bible. No biblical prophecy has been undisputably fulfilled (it's depends largely on interpretation) and some, such as the destruction of Niniveh, never came to pass. Maybe the delusion, then, is in taking the Bible literally.

Nostradamus is totally bogus. His prophecies are so vague as to admit a wide variety of interpretations, and often were rewritten for every new edition of his work.

Weren't we told somewhere, recorded from writings in the past, that this was going to happen?

Historically, the vast majority of predictions have failed. And the rare one which has not can be put down to mere coincidence.
Tilia wrote:

The nub of that matter is that the true leap of faith is not an intellectual one, but a matter of the will; that of committing one's life to Christ and living for Him only. Nobody does that unless they know about the facts of the matter; true, there may be endless debate about whether they are facts, but those who do not have actual faith may also believe in the alleged facts as found in the Bible; and many do so, imv.

I totally agree that the true leap is not the work of the intellect or of reason (that was my point all along). I do not understand, however, how can it be an act of the will entirely. If I wanted to, I could not will myself to believe something if there wasn't a strong emotional motivation. Faith is more emotional than rational.

Who are you to tell others what their motives should be? Is this clear enough? People can take Christianity, or leave it. That is their own business

If I think that believing something is a matter of life or death, and if I care about people, I'll make sure they choose the right thing. If a friend was about to cross the road and I saw a car coming, I would shout at the top of my lungs. Same with religion. If I truly believed that by accepting a religion they are going to avoid eternal damnation, I'd be aggressive about it. I wouldn't just have a "take it or leave it" attitude.

It's not reasonable?

No, I don't think so. God cannot be an arbitrary lawgiver, whether we are talking about natural laws, moral laws, or the laws of logic.

[Tilia]

[quote="Dilettante"]
Tilia wrote:

And Tilia expects that his posts will not be replied to along with a reply of any other poster, especially when placed after a reply to another poster. He won't even read such a reply.

[Jose]

And Tilia expects that his posts will not be replied to along with a reply of any other poster, especially when placed after a reply to another poster. He won't even read such a reply.

Gosh. I often find it really difficult not to link different people's thinking, so my posts tend to include quotes from several people at the same time. It seems to me that one should be honored to be quoted at all, rather than miffed that one's quote wasn't given the priority of being the only thing mentioned in a post.

It is true that some posts are sufficiently complex as to require a response dedicated to them alone. But for the occasional quote, concerning an important point, well...I prefer to see them linked into a single reply, rather than scattered about in separate posts. This makes it easier for me to follow the discussion.

So, let's take Dilettante's post in that spirit--an effort to keep the thread coherent, and to prevent it from drifting off into several different conversations.

[Jose]

Having said the above, I'll start a different post, just in case.

Even if someone wants to grasp the delusion that the Bible is much allegory, the world is heading towards the type of environment eerily consistent with the Bible "stories."

Be sure to remember, AlAyeti, that this movement toward catastrophe is, to a significant degree, spearheaded by Bible-believing Christians whom we have elected to public office, and by additional believers who insist that our mere mortal laws don't apply because they are doing god's work. I refer to destructive environmental policies that pretend that god will save us from ourselves (or that don't care for the plight of our grandchildren), or that assume god will provide after we rape the world, and that abandon science in favor of ignorance (you know--if we pretend we didn't know that we were screwing things up, then we can't be blamed for the havoc we wreak). I also refer to the brutal murders of doctors and of people whose only fault was being born the way god made them. And, of course, we're doing a superb job of teaching intolerant violence, as evidenced by the fact that the son of one of my friends--in 7th grade--had his hair set on fire because "he looked gay."

It seems odd to me that people with truly Christian belief could build such a world as we are developing, and then absolve themselves of responsibility because "the bible predicted it," and because they have "given their lives to Jesus" and therefore have no personal responsibility. I also fear that some of the Christian beliefs, like having dominion over all other life forms, and god "saving" and providing for his Special People, have led directly to the state of affairs in which we now find ourselves--and which will become much worse. While it may be rational in some ways to believe in the Christian god, it is entirely irrational to ignore the discoveries of people who study of his creation, and thus fail to protect creation from our ability to destroy it (at least, destroy the good parts.)

[Sender]

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?

To some it is, to some it isn't. Depends on your belief. There seems to be no middle ground. Each other thinking the same about the other as they themselves feel about them. Got it?

Everyone accuses the other of the same thing. It boils down to most of us having a belief and this forum isn't going to change it.

This is a Atheist home court forum, and sometimes when a Christian posts some good sound scientific or spiritual insight, some clown will swing in, then another, and they fly around that person and try to make them get off point, no matter what they talk about. They try to get them off their train of thought. Even if the Christian is strong and solid, it does take energy and time to deal with them as you continue forward. Most of you longtime forum members are good guys, and you don't realize it. But as a Christian, in here we have to put up with so much shit. Having said all of that allow me to say this. Compared to what Jesus put up with on the Cross, this isn't even a speed bump. Just an FYI to you forum "caretakers" on what is going on beneath the surface. Moving forward, I think Jesus is coming back soon, then we will find out what infinite is, or should I say what insignificant is, because <b> <i>every knee shall bow, every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.</i></b>

[Tilia]

And Tilia expects that his posts will not be replied to along with a reply of any other poster, especially when placed after a reply to another poster. He won't even read such a reply.

Gosh. I often find it really difficult not to link different people's thinking

What difficulty did you fail to find in this case?

so my posts tend to include quotes from several people at the same time.

I don't do that on any occasion. For one thing, I would not like to cause offence to anyone. For another thing, I would not like messages subsequent to the first one to be missed by the poster(s) to whom they are addressed, as is easily done. That would certainly be the case where messages concern very different matters, as indeed they did in this case. I would not want people to think me arrogant in expecting everyone to read all of my posts, whoever they are. I would not want anyone to think that I was ducking an issue, either.

It seems to me that one should be honored to be quoted at all

Not on the internet, Jose. Any dishonorably mendacious and/or deeply ignorant person who has acquired a computer can post on the internet, and any ignorant person can suppose that what such persons write is the truth. As is well known, the most despicable types of humanity make a bee-line for the 'net, so the odds of being both quoted and honorable are not particularly conspicuous.

[Sender]

And Tilia expects that his posts will not be replied to along with a reply of any other poster, especially when placed after a reply to another poster. He won't even read such a reply.

And you add insight to this forum how?

[MagusYanam]

Bringing this topic back to the issue at hand. (We seem to have wandered a fair ways.)

I think the belief in a deity whose personality is defined by sacrificial love and grace (God as revealed through Christ) is reasonable, based on the nature of the universe. The universe is structured in such a way that its energy dissipates (second law of thermodynamics), creating structures that can use that energy most efficiently. Life, for example: as living beings we take in all manner of energy through food, water and air and disperse it through all manner of activities. Living creatures are highly ordered, but through their maintenance they produce a great deal of entropy. In other words, the universe is running us indiscriminately at great cost to itself (in useable energy), much the way a parent would for his or her children.

As far as natural disasters and the problem of evil go, apparently the structures (like plate tectonics and atmospheric dynamics) that dissipate the energy most efficiently can also sometimes create devastating conditions, like earthquakes, hurricanes and thunderstorms. Given that these are inescapable consequences of living in a world that can support life, I am quite loath to call earthquakes, hurricanes and thunderstorms evil.

Of course, if the universe does have a personality predicated on sacrificial love and grace, a person so vast and inscrutable and given to caring for all of his creation would not really give a damn about the troubles of just one of his more insignificant creatures (me), so the only assurance of any personal interest God may have in me is through Christ.