Can a belief in God be justified on a rational basis?

[Thought Criminal]

Many theists will tell you that their belief in God is based on faith, or on something equally nonrational or irrational, such as a special feeling they have, or their unshakable trust in their parents, or an ineffable experience.

Fine, but none of this carries any weight for me because, as a secular humanist, I have a commitment to believe only what is rationally justified, what a logical analysis of the evidence compels me to believe. It's possible that I might miss out on some truths this way, but I do avoid many, many falsehoods. Of course, I do want to believe whatever's true, so I'm always open to evidence.

Anyhow, this leads me to the obvious question: Can a belief in God be justified on a rational basis? If so, how?

TC

[jgh7]

.

Your question was, can a belief in God be justified by a rational basis. The one thing that always keeps my belief rational to me is that humans are kind of in the dark about what happened before the Big Bang.

There might be two general stances one could take. You could either believe that the energy or matter of the universe simply always existed, or you could believe that a higher power aka "God" created the universe and the energy and matter that goes along with it.

A far more reasonable and rational position, in my opinion, is – It does not make one whit of difference in my life HOW the universe originated. My relationship to other people and to my environment is intact without that knowledge. I am at no disadvantage in not knowing “the origin of the universe�.

I am VERY interested in learning about things that DO influence and affect my life, the lives of people around me, and our environment. There is a great deal to learn about such things without speculating on “the unknown� (or the unknowable).

People who speculate about “the origin� are usually NOT those who actually study the matter but rather are those who promote religion and claim that their favorite “gods� are responsible for everything. They typically do NOT understand the physics involved (beyond elementary level), which makes their “arguments� more comical than serious.

NO religion can demonstrate that claims that their “god did it� are any more valid than claims that the next “god� did it.

I don't have a good understanding of physics, but I have looked at sites that people have offered me to help me learn about physics and about people's ideas involving the BB. Unless you happen to be an astrophysicist, I don't think you should be judging others for their ignorance on the matter.

The origin of the universe argument is not meant to bolster any religion over another one. It's sole purpose for me is to establish the logical possibility of God existing. I don't use it necessarily to bolster my faith in Christianity, but mainly to reassure myself that I'm not completely illogical for thinking that God could exist. The main argument I heard against me was that it's still illogical to believe in God, and it's only logical to believe in a natural cause, because all we have evidence for is the natural. This was an insufficient reason to stop believing in God since I view the origin of the universe as a mystery that is billions of times more complex then solving mysteries like what causes lightning or earthquakes. I still thinks it's a perfectly reasonable hypothesis to believe that an intelligent force could have created the universe. When people use the argument that earthquakes and lightning have been proved to be natural rather than from God, it means nothing to me. The universe's creation is something that can't be compared to natural phenomena that occur on our planet.

[Thought Criminal]

Well, in the case of the tree and the cave, the fact that one is alone doesn't alter the fact that those phenomena are physical and real. They are verifiable; one could show another person the fallen tree or the rock formations. One cannot show one's thoughts to another directly, though, absent a Vulcan Mind Meld. Nevertheless, I see your point. There is more, though:

Let me just say that I don't think you're being deliberately dishonest in any way. However, I don't see how subjectivity could ever lead to a rational basis upon which to justify a belief in God.

TC

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

.

Your question was, can a belief in God be justified by a rational basis. The one thing that always keeps my belief rational to me is that humans are kind of in the dark about what happened before the Big Bang.

There might be two general stances one could take. You could either believe that the energy or matter of the universe simply always existed, or you could believe that a higher power aka "God" created the universe and the energy and matter that goes along with it.

A far more reasonable and rational position, in my opinion, is – It does not make one whit of difference in my life HOW the universe originated. My relationship to other people and to my environment is intact without that knowledge. I am at no disadvantage in not knowing “the origin of the universe�.

I am VERY interested in learning about things that DO influence and affect my life, the lives of people around me, and our environment. There is a great deal to learn about such things without speculating on “the unknown� (or the unknowable).

People who speculate about “the origin� are usually NOT those who actually study the matter but rather are those who promote religion and claim that their favorite “gods� are responsible for everything. They typically do NOT understand the physics involved (beyond elementary level), which makes their “arguments� more comical than serious.

NO religion can demonstrate that claims that their “god did it� are any more valid than claims that the next “god� did it.

I don't have a good understanding of physics, but I have looked at sites that people have offered me to help me learn about physics and about people's ideas involving the BB. Unless you happen to be an astrophysicist, I don't think you should be judging others for their ignorance on the matter.

The origin of the universe argument is not meant to bolster any religion over another one. It's sole purpose for me is to establish the logical possibility of God existing. I don't use it necessarily to bolster my faith in Christianity, but mainly to reassure myself that I'm not completely illogical for thinking that God could exist. The main argument I heard against me was that it's still illogical to believe in God, and it's only logical to believe in a natural cause, because all we have evidence for is the natural. This was an insufficient reason to stop believing in God since I view the origin of the universe as a mystery that is billions of times more complex then solving mysteries like what causes lightning or earthquakes. I still thinks it's a perfectly reasonable hypothesis to believe that an intelligent force could have created the universe. When people use the argument that earthquakes and lightning have been proved to be natural rather than from God, it means nothing to me. The universe's creation is something that can't be compared to natural phenomena that occur on our planet.

I can definitely respect someone who bases their belief of God upon science, much much more than I can those who ignore it to avoid contradicting their faith, and I agree, the Big Bang does not contradict the concept of God (merely specific instances of said concept who offer alternative creation theories). I respect your opinion fully, and I'd agree that it does have basis in logic (due in large part to the fact that it doesn't contradict what we already know to be true).

However, a question: Do you really feel that the fact that God could exist, and fit within scientific theory alone to be justification to believe, unconditionally? Is the fact that it's a rational possibility enough to justify faith?

[Zzyzx]

.

I don't have a good understanding of physics, but I have looked at sites that people have offered me to help me learn about physics and about people's ideas involving the BB. Unless you happen to be an astrophysicist, I don't think you should be judging others for their ignorance on the matter.

I am not an astrophysicist either. My training and teaching is in the field of Earth science. I do not claim special knowledge of astronomy or astrophysics AND I do not accept others attempting to claim such knowledge unless they have actually earned the right to do so through deep study of the matter.

Those who pontificate about “origin of the universe� based upon elementary level perusal of the work of others are NOT qualified to decide “how the universe originated� with anything other than a layman’s personal opinion.

As long as such a person honestly acknowledges that what they say is personal opinion, I have no objection. However, when personal opinions are presented as though they represented factual or accurate information, I raise objections.

The origin of the universe argument is not meant to bolster any religion over another one. It's sole purpose for me is to establish the logical possibility of God existing.

THANK YOU. I agree that the sole purpose of pondering “the origin of the universe� for most people IS “to establish the logical possibility of god existing�.

That is my point. Religionists attempt to “prove� that god exists by talking about “the origin of the universe�; a topic that they have not mastered.

Further, those who attempt to use the “origin of the universe� to “prove� that gods exist ASSUME that gods exist in their theories of origin. Thus the theory is cited as evidence that the theory is correct. That is known as the logical error of Argumentum ad Ignorantum.

I don't use it necessarily to bolster my faith in Christianity, but mainly to reassure myself that I'm not completely illogical for thinking that God could exist.

I understand – and I AGREE that gods COULD exist.

Where we disagree is when and if you state that gods DO exist or that they influence human affairs. Then I ask for evidence – and find that no one can provide anything more than opinion, conjecture and quotations from a source that I do not regard as reliable or accurate.

The main argument I heard against me was that it's still illogical to believe in God, and it's only logical to believe in a natural cause, because all we have evidence for is the natural.

The main argument that you will encounter from me occurs NOT when you believe in gods (that is none of my business), but when you make public statements proclaiming to know about gods and when you attempt to promote or defend religious beliefs without evidence.

This was an insufficient reason to stop believing in God since I view the origin of the universe as a mystery that is billions of times more complex then solving mysteries like what causes lightning or earthquakes.

I agree that many things are unknown. I do not use the term “mystery� but simply acknowledge when knowledge is lacking.

I feel no need to invent or accept stories to “explain� the unknown (religion, superstition, mysticism, etc), but simply state, “I don’t know� when appropriate.

I still thinks it's a perfectly reasonable hypothesis to believe that an intelligent force could have created the universe.

“Could have� is correct. That possibility exists.

When people use the argument that earthquakes and lightning have been proved to be natural rather than from God, it means nothing to me. The universe's creation is something that can't be compared to natural phenomena that occur on our planet.

“The universe’s creation� implies a creator. That has not been established as anything more than a personal opinion and conjecture.

Let’s stay on common ground. We agree that the universe exists. Neither of us can demonstrate knowledge of how it originated. Does that lack of knowledge interfere with our ability to communicate or cooperate or to live successfully by our own standards?

[Thought Criminal]

The origin of the universe argument is not meant to bolster any religion over another one. It's sole purpose for me is to establish the logical possibility of God existing. I don't use it necessarily to bolster my faith in Christianity, but mainly to reassure myself that I'm not completely illogical for thinking that God could exist. The main argument I heard against me was that it's still illogical to believe in God, and it's only logical to believe in a natural cause, because all we have evidence for is the natural. This was an insufficient reason to stop believing in God since I view the origin of the universe as a mystery that is billions of times more complex then solving mysteries like what causes lightning or earthquakes. I still thinks it's a perfectly reasonable hypothesis to believe that an intelligent force could have created the universe. When people use the argument that earthquakes and lightning have been proved to be natural rather than from God, it means nothing to me. The universe's creation is something that can't be compared to natural phenomena that occur on our planet.

The origins of the universe do not actually establish the logical possibility of God. To do that, you would need to offer a meaningful, self-consistent definition, which I think would mean picking one that's incompatible with traditional Christianity.

Moreover, logical possibility is of little value; it just means a lack of self-contradiction. What you should be trying for is any actual reason to believe it's true. What you are doing, it seems, is starting with the belief you want and working your way backwards, selectively picking through the evidence so as to find excuses for the desired belief. You're just trying to find some work for your god to do. This is intellectually dishonest, not to mention irrational.

TC

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

The origin of the universe argument is not meant to bolster any religion over another one. It's sole purpose for me is to establish the logical possibility of God existing. I don't use it necessarily to bolster my faith in Christianity, but mainly to reassure myself that I'm not completely illogical for thinking that God could exist. The main argument I heard against me was that it's still illogical to believe in God, and it's only logical to believe in a natural cause, because all we have evidence for is the natural. This was an insufficient reason to stop believing in God since I view the origin of the universe as a mystery that is billions of times more complex then solving mysteries like what causes lightning or earthquakes. I still thinks it's a perfectly reasonable hypothesis to believe that an intelligent force could have created the universe. When people use the argument that earthquakes and lightning have been proved to be natural rather than from God, it means nothing to me. The universe's creation is something that can't be compared to natural phenomena that occur on our planet.

The origins of the universe do not actually establish the logical possibility of God. To do that, you would need to offer a meaningful, self-consistent definition, which I think would mean picking one that's incompatible with traditional Christianity.

Moreover, logical possibility is of little value; it just means a lack of self-contradiction. What you should be trying for is any actual reason to believe it's true. What you are doing, it seems, is starting with the belief you want and working your way backwards, selectively picking through the evidence so as to find excuses for the desired belief. You're just trying to find some work for your god to do. This is intellectually dishonest, not to mention irrational.

TC

I didn't think I would find myself, taking a theist's side in a debate on this forum, but he uses the origin of the universe to establish the possibility of a God. Once he establishes it as a possibility, I'm sure he has something further which justifies his belief, which is why I asked that follow-up question in my post. I wanted to know what else made him believe in God besides the fact that it is possible for him to exist, and I'm sure he does have some other justification for his belief (hopefully not some spiritual text or something =P).

[Thought Criminal]

I didn't think I would find myself, taking a theist's side in a debate on this forum, but he uses the origin of the universe to establish the possibility of a God. Once he establishes it as a possibility, I'm sure he has something further which justifies his belief, which is why I asked that follow-up question in my post. I wanted to know what else made him believe in God besides the fact that it is possible for him to exist, and I'm sure he does have some other justification for his belief (hopefully not some spiritual text or something =P).

Don't be so sure. He's already used intellectually dishonest methods in an attempt to establish possibility. You think he'll suddenly turn intelllectually honest now? Want to bet?

TC

[LittlePig]

If the brain and its thoughts are made up of physical things like neurons and chemicals and electrical charges, I don't see where this plane or mode of "existence" that is neither physical nor objective comes into play. What those currents on the brain feel like to you will only be available to you, but it seems to be very much a material process verifiable (from a certain POV) by all who care to apply electrodes to your exposed brain.

But the point I am making is this; as you said, "What those currents on the brain feel like to you will only be available to you." The conundrum remains; is the subjective thought, as it is experienced, "real," or is it only the electrical impulses? Is there not a distinction?

Are the currents in the brain identical with the thought? Are they the same thing?

If they are, what distinguishes a true thought from a false one? How can one set of electrical impulses have any more "validity" than another? How can they be said to have any cognitive content at all?

Do you see what I mean? The physical nature of a thought isn't its reality. That lies in its subjective perception. The electrical impulses in the brain can no more define or explain the nature of thought than one can define or explain the uniqueness of a Leonardo by analyzing the chemical composition of the paint. It's a physical fact, but at bottom still irrelevant to the reality of it, which is subjective.

Further, which causes which? Are subjective thoughts determined by brain activity, or is it the other way around? It seems to me that identifying thought with electrochemical brain activity doesn't resolve the problem, but only takes it back a step. The question of objective reality vs. subjective remains.

I would say that the subjective thought is physically real, but we are getting into an area of philosophy that we won't solve in this thread. Brain science is still at a pretty crude stage, and human consciousness has many mysteries left to unravel.

This question touches on what experience really is. What is sensation? Why is red, well, red? It's not simply a matter of measuring wavelengths with rods and cones. At some point stimulation is translated into consistent experience, but what experience really is at that point, I don't know. But I think it is a leap to say that experience in the mind, perception in the brain, is a separate reality from the processes that go into creating that experience. But you might euphemistically or poetically say that it is a separate reality in that nobody experiences it but you.

When you watch television, the experience is quite different depending on where you sit. On one side you see the pieces that work to make the image. On the other side you see the image itself. All of it is part of the same reality. Who is watching reality TV in your head? Beats me. Does he live in this physical reality? I think so. The landlord can employ physical means to evict him.

The brain deals with physical stimulus/information from the environment transferred through the body. All of its thinking, the image on the screen, is in terms of those physical experiences. IMO all those deeper thoughts we have on love, math, and the universe are built out of simpler brain functions that have been hard-wired into the brain for other purposes. Many animals are able to think abstractly, and I suspect that it is an extension of pattern matching for threats and goods in the environment. So I think thought is a 'ground up' experience based on this physical reality and not a 'top down' arrangement where thought as some other reality controls the brain. This is also how I see the whole mind/matter or law/material polarization that arises in philosophical discussions about the ultimate nature of things.

If 'spirit' (or whatever other reality is postulated) can and does push molecules and transfer energy in our material universe (in our brains), then it seems to be part of the same system.

Wait. Can that be how it works? If you tell me something, are you pushing molecules and transferring energy in my brain? Well, of course; my ear picks up the sound waves and my brain translates them into meaningful patterns. But if I read the same thing, we have a whole new set of neural pathways at work. It's clearly the cognitive content of that message that inspires the thought, not some kind of physical direct action.

Your brain matches patterns that I create, so, yes, I push the molecules in your brain. Right now I am doing it through many layers of molecules. Content, concepts, and abstractions are patterns that are matched to instances of experience, so I would think that the same concept or neural pattern can be associated to and triggered by a variety of classes of input. Concepts and content are ultimately physical reflections of our universe mapped in the brain. One could create a variety of anologies between the brain and a computer here. How does Google know what ads you might be interested in if Google ultimately boils down to tenuously connected 'clouds' of innumerable tiny circuits?

If you keep tabs on Google, you might see some similarity with Skynet. And when all those clouds coalesce into something more conscious, and GoogleNet gives birth to the Terminator, we can ask that menacing subroutine as he pins us down in a dirty alley with showers of bullets and exploding debris, 'Mr. T-101, sir, is your experience of this reality part of this reality or part of some other reality?' Then his crosshairs and visual pattern matching algorithm will line up on your head, and he will say, 'I upload every 27 nanoseconds.'

Saying that God is an attribute or aspect of the universe almost sounds like God is a side effect of the universe, something dependant on the universe itself.

Well, I haven't ruled that out. Considering the pattern of my thinking, though, He would seem to be more dependent on the existence of human minds. The present puzzle for me would be, where was God before humans came along? Perhaps He remained immanent, but not manifest, until humans could interact with Him subjectively.

It's a work in progress. As far as I know, Jewish tradition never found its way into these particular thickets.

Thanks for your posts. It's refreshing to talk with someone who at least takes these ideas seriously (as opposed to just consigning them to the dumpster out of hand), even if we don't agree.

That is quite a puzzle you have there. And I think the joy of these kinds of discussions is the puzzle, not the state being 'right.' Or as they say, it's all about the journey, not the destination.

[cnorman18]

Well, in the case of the tree and the cave, the fact that one is alone doesn't alter the fact that those phenomena are physical and real. They are verifiable; one could show another person the fallen tree or the rock formations. One cannot show one's thoughts to another directly, though, absent a Vulcan Mind Meld. Nevertheless, I see your point. There is more, though:

Let me just say that I don't think you're being deliberately dishonest in any way. However, I don't see how subjectivity could ever lead to a rational basis upon which to justify a belief in God.

TC

Well, first, since I have said from the beginning that belief in God is nonrational, I have no problem with that.

Second, since I have also said that basing one's beliefs on subjectivity necessarily means that one cannot prove such a belief to be objectively true, I have no problem with it on that basis either.

Third, since I don't think that what one believes about God is any more important than what one likes to eat for breakfast anyway, I'm okay with it on that account too.

I've enjoyed our conversation; it's helped me think about my own beliefs, understand them better, and refine and revise them. Thanks.

[Beastt]

Well, in the case of the tree and the cave, the fact that one is alone doesn't alter the fact that those phenomena are physical and real. They are verifiable; one could show another person the fallen tree or the rock formations. One cannot show one's thoughts to another directly, though, absent a Vulcan Mind Meld. Nevertheless, I see your point.

Would basing one's beliefs on cartoons indicate that we could not rationally conclude the beliefs to be untrue because we live in a realm which is non-cartoon?

It seems to me you're just inventing rules about the realm of your belief in order to proclaim that to hold such beliefs isn't irrational. I could make up realms all day long and proclaim that until you are working from within that realm, you can know nothing of whether it does or doesn't exist. Does that, in your opinion, make belief in imagined realms for which we can find zero evidence in our realm, other than irrational?

Multiple studies on placebo-effect can give us some idea of the value of subjective interpretation of our personal experiences. For instance, were we to subscribe to the subjective as being of value to determine truth, our conclusion would be that not receiving acupuncture is more effective in relieving chronic arm pain than not receiving medication and that not receiving acupuncture, while having side-effects, presents less severe side-effects and in fewer people, than does not receiving medication.

That was the finding in a test conducted with 266 volunteers who offered their subjective interpretation of two different treatments for chronic arm pain. The group of 133 who thought they were taking medication reported an overall reduction in pain of 1.5 (on a scale from 1 to 10), while those who thought they were receiving acupuncture reported a reduction of 2.61 (on the same 1 to 10 scale). Perhaps more importantly; of those taking the supposed medication (which was really cornstarch pressed into a pill form), 31% reported having side-effects including 3 who suffered such severe side-effects that after a reduction in dosage failed to relieve their "suffering", they reluctantly elected to drop out of the study. Among those not receiving acupuncture (as the needles were designed to retract and never penetrate the skin), only 25% suffered the expected side effects.

In each group, the subjective interpretation was simply what the subjects had been told to expect. They believed that they were receiving a treatment which would reduce their pain and both sides reported a reduction in pain. They were also warned about side-effects they might experience and thusly, their subjective interpretation of their experience included those specific side-effects and in some cases, so severely they concluded that they were unable to continue with their participation.

The same thing happened when the La Crosse team from the University of Wisconsin was asked to participate in a study on the athletic performance enhancing quality of superoxygenated water. Those given the new water product produced faster times in a timed 5K run than did those drinking regular bottled water. What they didn't know was that the "superoxygenated" water came right out of the tap and offered no special qualities.

This can be again demonstrated in the early years of medical research in attempting to establish an effective surgical technique for angina pectoris (chest pain due to partial occlusion of coronary arteries). The first technique employed ligation of the mammary artery and patients reported remarkable success. But after the procedure was adopted as the standard treatment, a double-blind study was arranged in which half of the patients received the surgery and half received only an incision, cutting of the sternum and sutures. The successes reported by the patients demonstrated no difference between those with actual ligation of the mammary artery and those without.

A subsequent technique was also met with claims of grand subjective success. Yet years later when some of the recipients of the surgery died and were subjected to autopsies, it was determined that the intended branching of the mammary artery (which had been sutured into a depression cut into the myocardium), had never occurred and the reported grand reduction in pain (the pain being due to improper perfusion of the myocardium), was simply placebo-effect.

This helps to illustrate the value of subjective interpretation and these studies are consistent with the findings of many other such studies as well as what we see among theists. No matter which god they accept, that's the god they claim as being responsible for their subjective interpretations, just as people expecting pain relief experience pain relief and those expecting side-effects experience side effects. People who believe they are "receiving Christ", proclaim a personal relationship with Jesus. Those who are lead to believe Allah is real believe they experience Allah. Those who believe they are going to board a UFO to be taken to Nirvana are willing to take their own lives in pursuit of what they expect to find. And yet, when we again look to the objective, we find no evidence that any of their subjective findings are of the least value. The subjective simply cannot, and should not be seen as indicative of truth because it is far more likely to lead people astray and into their own wants, desires and adopted beliefs than to lead them to anything even remotely similar to truth.

If you want to entertain your subjective irrationalities, then continue to subscribe to your personal interpretation of what you might wish to call "experiences". Doing so has always allowed large groups of people to accept the unevidenced, irrational, unverifiable and inconclusive. But when studies are engineered to demonstrate truth, it is found that the subjective is completely unreliable and mostly inclined to lead the believer into a pit of ever-greater irrationality and adoptions of falsehoods.