Is Theism more RATIONAL than Non-Theism?

[Zzyzx]

.
In several current threads an Apologist argues that Theism is as rational as, or more rational than, Non-Theism. Let's address that issue directly.

Definitions:

Theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods (Merriam Webster Dictionary)

Non-Theism: without belief in the existence of a god or gods

Rational: of, relating to, or based upon reason

Inferior: of less importance, value, or merit


Questions for debate:

1) Is Theism AS RATIONAL as Non-Theism? Why?

2) Is Theism MORE RATIONAL than Non-Theism? Why?

3) Is Non-Theism inferior to Theism? Why?

[cnorman18]

Zzyzx

I wrote:

Unless and until theism can be demonstrated with reason backed by evidence it is not the most rational position. Given the current state of human knowledge, non-theism is the "superior" position.

To explain and expand I would say that I take the same position about Big Foot, UFOs, Alien Abduction, Magical 100MPG carburetors, Magnetic healing bracelets...

Unless and until ANYTHING can be explained by reason backed by evidence, not accepting it's existence is the most rational stance, I truly don't know how any other stance can be valid. Even math and logic, if used alone, may indicate something is possible, but without real world evidence they can never show that something is true. An example of the first(math)is string theory, an example of the second is Anselm or Gobel's Ontological "proofs".

Seems to me that saying that something is "possible, but not proven true" is not the same as saying it is "false."

In any case, the question here is not whether a specific belief or absence of belief is true, but whether it is rational. Those are not the same thing. For instance, a person might believe that there is a person waiting in the closet to murder him; that belief might be wholly irrational and based on pure paranoid delusion, and still be 100% true. Paranoid lunatics can be the victims of crimes as easily as (perhaps even more easily than) anyone else.

A person might also believe, with perfect evidence and rationality, that his car is still parked in the driveway when he gets up in the morning -- and that belief might very well prove to be factually false, since the car might have been stolen in the night. "True" and "rational" are not the same thing. QED.

In the case of gods, the implications are obvious. One might rationally and reasonably conclude that gods are "not proven," and even though that is not the same as "nonexistent," might make a reasoned choice to eschew belief and assume that there are no gods. On the other hand, one who chooses to approach the question in a less rigidly objective and materialistic manner might conclude that, though the existence of gods is still "not proven," that such gods or God might exist and be worthy of a tentative and provisional belief -- or of "belief" in the principles represented by the God-concept, as I have discussed elsewhere. As I keep saying; religious belief is not purely or solely a matter of giving intellectual assent to a set of theological doctrines, and certainly not to a set of objective truth-claims.

You might not agree, but the fact that such a person employed reasoning and thought in getting there would make such a conclusion "rational" in a strict sense; "logical" might be another matter, but that isn't the same thing either.

[theopoesis]

.
In several current threads an Apologist argues that Theism is as rational as, or more rational than, Non-Theism. Let's address that issue directly.

Definitions:

Theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods (Merriam Webster Dictionary)

Non-Theism: without belief in the existence of a god or gods

Rational: of, relating to, or based upon reason

Inferior: of less importance, value, or merit


Questions for debate:

1) Is Theism AS RATIONAL as Non-Theism? Why?

2) Is Theism MORE RATIONAL than Non-Theism? Why?

3) Is Non-Theism inferior to Theism? Why?

While we are defining things, I believe that we must attend to "reason" as well.

reason: the mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences or, alternately (in philosophy), the faculty or power of acquiring intellectual knowledge, either by direct understanding of first principles or by argument.

Therefore, using the first definition, for something to be rational it is based upon reason, or the mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences. Insofar as theistic systems exist which engage the mental powers which form conclusions, judgments, or inferences, theistic systems can be called "rational."

Let us take the second definition, the definition according to philosophy: a theistic system can be called "rational" insofar as it is based upon "the faculty or power of acquiring intellectual knowledge, either by direct understanding of first principles or by argument." Note that "first principles" are (according to wikipedia) "a basic, foundational proposition or assumption that cannot be deduced from any other proposition or assumption." God, and many other theistic beliefs, might be held as "first principles" by this definition.

Therefore, contrary to the opinions of some (see below) Theism in fact can be rational insofar as it is a system built upon reason, i.e. upon the mental faculties operating from within certain particular first principles. It is the first principles which are taken by the theist (and by any system of rationality) by faith and not by reason itself. Such first principles are inevitably pre-rational.

Thus, it would be quite appropriate to say that there are in fact several rationalities insofar as there are several systems constructed by reason based on differing first principles. To judge between one system of rationality and another is quite difficult, but superficially we can say that one system (i.e. theism) is as rational as another (i.e. non-theism) insofar as reason operating based on first principles is able to operate consistently. Therefore, particular brands of theism are as rational as non-theism insofar as reason operating within first principles does so consistently.

Insofar as many brands of non-theism historically originated from within theistic rationalities, many brands of non-theism are less rational than the brands of theism from which they originated. This is because such non-theistic perspectives continue to operate using ideas/language derived from theistic perspectives while simultaneously rejecting the first principles from these theistic perspectives. Therefore, some non-theistic perspectives find themselves rejecting the first principles that in fact buttress deduced premises. Insofar as a non-theistic perspective retains vestigial logic based on the first principles from the theistic systems they emerged from, and insofar as the first principles of the theistic systems are themselves rejected, certain non-theistic perspectives are less rational than theistic counterparts.

I believe that one example of this could be seen in the thread on the Trinity and Personalism. The idea of the "person" historically originated in patristic theology. Some non-theists were able to address the link between personalism and Trinitarian thought. They rejected both the first principles (the Trinity) and the deduced premises (personhood). Others sought to retain the idea of a person while rejecting the first principles that brought the idea of the person about. A few seemed to sidestep the issue or to critique the link between personalism and the Trinity. The first group would be as rational as the theist, the second less rational, the third group we would judge on the merit of their arguments.

As for "inferiority" of the theistic and non-theistic perspectives, I would say that a particular rationality (theistic or non-theistic) might be less "important" if it were less fully developed. Therefore, if two rationalities were equally coherent, but one was able to offer insight into ethics, politics, science, and psychology, while another rationality only offers insight into politics and science, the latter rationality could be considered in some way inferior. Therefore, If a theistic perspective offers a wider scope of applicability of equal rationality to a non-theistic perspective with a narrow scope of applicability, the non-theistic perspective can be considered inferior. I won't name any specific perspectives or individuals considered inferior or superior, but note that the possibility exists.

On one hand some theist claim their position is above reason which makes it largely unfounded unless it is somehow rooted in the rational which is denied by the theist making any claims to being rational fidalistic and not open to comparison.

I'm not sure I understand your summary or critique of fideism. For the sake of clarity, perhaps a better understanding of relativistic fideism might be helpful. Here's a diagram:


First principles - > rationality - > derived conclusions, theories, premises

For the theist:

Trinitarian God revealed through the resurrected Christ - > theology and Christian world view - > political theology, ethics, aesthetics, ecclesiology, hermeneutics, etc.

[Goat]

.
In several current threads an Apologist argues that Theism is as rational as, or more rational than, Non-Theism. Let's address that issue directly.

Definitions:

Theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods (Merriam Webster Dictionary)

Non-Theism: without belief in the existence of a god or gods

Rational: of, relating to, or based upon reason

Inferior: of less importance, value, or merit


Questions for debate:

1) Is Theism AS RATIONAL as Non-Theism? Why?

2) Is Theism MORE RATIONAL than Non-Theism? Why?

3) Is Non-Theism inferior to Theism? Why?

While we are defining things, I believe that we must attend to "reason" as well.

reason: the mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences or, alternately (in philosophy), the faculty or power of acquiring intellectual knowledge, either by direct understanding of first principles or by argument.

Therefore, using the first definition, for something to be rational it is based upon reason, or the mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences. Insofar as theistic systems exist which engage the mental powers which form conclusions, judgments, or inferences, theistic systems can be called "rational."

Let us take the second definition, the definition according to philosophy: a theistic system can be called "rational" insofar as it is based upon "the faculty or power of acquiring intellectual knowledge, either by direct understanding of first principles or by argument." Note that "first principles" are (according to wikipedia) "a basic, foundational proposition or assumption that cannot be deduced from any other proposition or assumption." God, and many other theistic beliefs, might be held as "first principles" by this definition.

Therefore, contrary to the opinions of some (see below) Theism in fact can be rational insofar as it is a system built upon reason, i.e. upon the mental faculties operating from within certain particular first principles. It is the first principles which are taken by the theist (and by any system of rationality) by faith and not by reason itself. Such first principles are inevitably pre-rational.

Thus, it would be quite appropriate to say that there are in fact several rationalities insofar as there are several systems constructed by reason based on differing first principles. To judge between one system of rationality and another is quite difficult, but superficially we can say that one system (i.e. theism) is as rational as another (i.e. non-theism) insofar as reason operating based on first principles is able to operate consistently. Therefore, particular brands of theism are as rational as non-theism insofar as reason operating within first principles does so consistently.

Insofar as many brands of non-theism historically originated from within theistic rationalities, many brands of non-theism are less rational than the brands of theism from which they originated. This is because such non-theistic perspectives continue to operate using ideas/language derived from theistic perspectives while simultaneously rejecting the first principles from these theistic perspectives. Therefore, some non-theistic perspectives find themselves rejecting the first principles that in fact buttress deduced premises. Insofar as a non-theistic perspective retains vestigial logic based on the first principles from the theistic systems they emerged from, and insofar as the first principles of the theistic systems are themselves rejected, certain non-theistic perspectives are less rational than theistic counterparts.

I believe that one example of this could be seen in the thread on the Trinity and Personalism. The idea of the "person" historically originated in patristic theology. Some non-theists were able to address the link between personalism and Trinitarian thought. They rejected both the first principles (the Trinity) and the deduced premises (personhood). Others sought to retain the idea of a person while rejecting the first principles that brought the idea of the person about. A few seemed to sidestep the issue or to critique the link between personalism and the Trinity. The first group would be as rational as the theist, the second less rational, the third group we would judge on the merit of their arguments.

As for "inferiority" of the theistic and non-theistic perspectives, I would say that a particular rationality (theistic or non-theistic) might be less "important" if it were less fully developed. Therefore, if two rationalities were equally coherent, but one was able to offer insight into ethics, politics, science, and psychology, while another rationality only offers insight into politics and science, the latter rationality could be considered in some way inferior. Therefore, If a theistic perspective offers a wider scope of applicability of equal rationality to a non-theistic perspective with a narrow scope of applicability, the non-theistic perspective can be considered inferior. I won't name any specific perspectives or individuals considered inferior or superior, but note that the possibility exists.

On one hand some theist claim their position is above reason which makes it largely unfounded unless it is somehow rooted in the rational which is denied by the theist making any claims to being rational fidalistic and not open to comparison.

I'm not sure I understand your summary or critique of fideism. For the sake of clarity, perhaps a better understanding of relativistic fideism might be helpful. Here's a diagram:


First principles - > rationality - > derived conclusions, theories, premises

For the theist:

Trinitarian God revealed through the resurrected Christ - > theology and Christian world view - > political theology, ethics, aesthetics, ecclesiology, hermeneutics, etc.

It seems to me that you are doing a lot of redefining of words, and trying to put square pegs into round holes. When things start becoming overly complicated, that should raise red flags when it comes to 'rational'. .. at least when the subject is metaphysics, and can not be verified by outside sources.

When you need a fancy decoder ring to interpret concepts for which the premise can not be verified, that is not rational at all.

[theopoesis]

It seems to me that you are doing a lot of redefining of words, and trying to put square pegs into round holes.

I took my definitions verbatim from either (1) the OP, (2) dictionary.com, which uses Random House Dictionary, or (3) wikipedia (this was only for "first principles." Dictionaries do not define philosophical concepts, but only words). How do I redefine words if I take the definitions from the dictionary?

When things start becoming overly complicated, that should raise red flags when it comes to 'rational'. .. at least when the subject is metaphysics, and can not be verified by outside sources.

By what simple metaphysical principle do you limit metaphysics to simplicity?

By what simple metaphysical principle to you limit rationality to empiricism?

By what simple principle do you build a system of rationality, and what rationality do you erect?

Furthermore, the above argument is not simply pre-rational metaphysics. It also involves reason and argumentation. Are we also to reject complex reason? Then there goes calculus, physics, economics, philosophy, computer science, sociology, psychology.

When you need a fancy decoder ring to interpret concepts for which the premise can not be verified, that is not rational at all.

When the best objection someone can raise is "your (dictionary definitions) just change definitions" or when an argument is dismissed as "too complex", that is not rational at all.

[Zzyzx]

.

Personally, I view someones argument that theism is more rational than non-theism as an attempt to discredit someones beliefs and a weak argument that really has no purpose in a debate. It makes him/her look like he/she is trying to be superior to help his arguments.

I agree 100% -- and trust that readers agree with you also.

If one has a strong position to present they need not make such weak "arguments", but should be willing to debate honestly and openly without resorting to word games, tactics, and maneuvering.

"Present your evidence and your conclusions for consideration by all, and let them stand or fall by their own merits."

[cnorman18]

I have been told that I have a knack for making difficult concepts understandable; I was told this as a minister/preacher and as a teacher of mathematics. Let me give it a shot here. As nearly as I can "translate" theopoesis's argument (and no doubt oversimplify it), it runs like this:

Any system of thought which uses organized reasoning to move from whatever "first principles," aka "axioms," to its conclusions may be called "rational," since that process involves the use of reason. This remains true whether those first principles come from a theistic perspective or not.

He then goes on to say that a nontheistic thought system which moves from "first principles" drawn from theism, and then rejects those principles as it moves toward its conclusions, might be said to be less rational than a theistic thought system which consistently retains the first principles from which it began.

I decline to offer an opinion on the validity of this argument. At this point, I'd just ask theopoesis if that accurately reflects the argument he's making here, if only in simplified form.

In other words -- How'd I do?

[Cathar1950]

I have been told that I have a knack for making difficult concepts understandable; I was told this as a minister/preacher and as a teacher of mathematics. Let me give it a shot here. As nearly as I can "translate" theopoesis's argument (and no doubt oversimplify it), it runs like this:

Any system of thought which uses organized reasoning to move from whatever "first principles," aka "axioms," to its conclusions may be called "rational," since that process involves the use of reason. This remains true whether those first principles come from a theistic perspective or not.

He then goes on to say that a nontheistic thought system which moves from "first principles" drawn from theism, and then rejects those principles as it moves toward its conclusions, might be said to be less rational than a theistic thought system which consistently retains the first principles from which it began.

I decline to offer an opinion on the validity of this argument. At this point, I'd just ask theopoesis if that accurately reflects the argument he's making here, if only in simplified form.

In other words -- How'd I do?

That was pretty much what I got out of it.
Of course I think it is theology that got the meanings or principles from mostly Greek words and meanings and they were using other theological ideas, sometimes such as Hebrew, and even they would be seen in experiences and God was developed from other gods. Like hiss questionable Christian creation of the person he wants to give theology credit for even the principle terms.

[theopoesis]

I have been told that I have a knack for making difficult concepts understandable; I was told this as a minister/preacher and as a teacher of mathematics. Let me give it a shot here. As nearly as I can "translate" theopoesis's argument (and no doubt oversimplify it), it runs like this:

Any system of thought which uses organized reasoning to move from whatever "first principles," aka "axioms," to its conclusions may be called "rational," since that process involves the use of reason. This remains true whether those first principles come from a theistic perspective or not.

He then goes on to say that a nontheistic thought system which moves from "first principles" drawn from theism, and then rejects those principles as it moves toward its conclusions, might be said to be less rational than a theistic thought system which consistently retains the first principles from which it began.

I decline to offer an opinion on the validity of this argument. At this point, I'd just ask theopoesis if that accurately reflects the argument he's making here, if only in simplified form.

In other words -- How'd I do?

Quite well, in fact. Thanks for the help.

[theopoesis]

.

Personally, I view someones argument that theism is more rational than non-theism as an attempt to discredit someones beliefs and a weak argument that really has no purpose in a debate. It makes him/her look like he/she is trying to be superior to help his arguments.

I agree 100% -- and trust that readers agree with you also.

If one has a strong position to present they need not make such weak "arguments", but should be willing to debate honestly and openly without resorting to word games, tactics, and maneuvering.

"Present your evidence and your conclusions for consideration by all, and let them stand or fall by their own merits."

I disagree. Here's why:

Your final statement says "present your evidence and your conclusions for consideration by all." This implies that the only way to establish the validity of a perspective is through empiricism (i.e. through evidence). Thus, the statement implies already the superiority of the empiricist methods. Almost half the threads around here go something like this: "What is the evidence for __________."

If empiricism is touted as the only valid system of rationality, but Christianity is built on another system of rationality, every post by non-theists demanding an empiricist perspective implies that non-theism is more rational than theism.

The best response by a theist confronting a continued series of claims that non-theistic empiricism is more rational than the theistic perspective? Challenge the non-theist's implied claim to superiority of rationality. If theism can be rational, or even more rational than the non-theist, the superiority of empiricism can be abandoned and a more fruitful dialogue can commence.

Would not the non-theist's demand for empiricism or nothing similarly be "an attempt to discredit someone's beliefs" by requiring and allowing only a particular rationality?

[theopoesis]

Of course I think it is theology that got the meanings or principles from mostly Greek words and meanings and they were using other theological ideas, sometimes such as Hebrew, and even they would be seen in experiences and God was developed from other gods. Like hiss questionable Christian creation of the person he wants to give theology credit for even the principle terms.

I cited books on the other thread, but those seem irrelevant to the reader of an online forum. Perhaps a digital source will help?

Prosopon (pronounced /ˈprɒsɵpɒn/[1] or /prɵˈsoʊpən/,[2] from Ancient Greek: π�όσωπον; plural: Ancient Greek: π�όσωπα - prosopa) is a technical term encountered in Greek theology. It is most often translated as "person", and as such is sometimes confused in translation with hypostasis, which is also translated as "person." Prosopon originally meant "face" or "mask" in Greek and derives from Greek theatre, in which actors on a stage wore masks to reveal their character and emotional state to the audience. Both prosopon and hypostasis played central roles in the development of theology about the Trinity and about Jesus Christ (Christology) in the debates of the fourth through seventh centuries.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosopon

It seems that wikipedia agrees: in Greek, "propopon" originally meant "mask." In patristic theology it means "person." That's a shift in meaning.

The Cappadocian fathers were the first to link "hypostasis" (individual existence) with "prosopon" (originally mask) to develop the idea of a person as we know it today. I cited John Zizoulas' book Being as Communion which traces the historical origins of the word.

I want to give theology credit for what it has done, and nothing more. I have yet to see an acceptable response to my main arguments in the other thread. I still await the revisions to your final post to see what you have to say.