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
Can a belief in God be justified on a rational basis?
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Banned
- Posts: 1081
- Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 10:05 pm
- Goat
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24999
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Re: Can a belief in God be justified on a rational basis?
Post #161No, God is the universe. We are all part of God...McCulloch wrote:And I thought that God is love. No, God is Spirit.justifyothers wrote:God is science. He has created all and holds in His hands the laws of the universe, understanding that He has created them for us.
So why would a God of science tell us that the universe is less than 10,000 years old and then let us observe stars which are orders of magnitude more than 10,000 light years away?
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�
Steven Novella
Steven Novella
-
- Banned
- Posts: 1081
- Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 10:05 pm
Re: Can a belief in God be justified on a rational basis?
Post #162No, God is the ocean, and the ocean exists so God exists. Oh, wait. That's not an argument, that's a misdefinition!goat wrote:No, God is the universe. We are all part of God...McCulloch wrote:And I thought that God is love. No, God is Spirit.justifyothers wrote:God is science. He has created all and holds in His hands the laws of the universe, understanding that He has created them for us.
So why would a God of science tell us that the universe is less than 10,000 years old and then let us observe stars which are orders of magnitude more than 10,000 light years away?
TC
Post #163
It's hard to say what the exact definition of faith is. Some people might think that faith actually means believing that something is actually true based on the evidence you have. Other people might think that faith means simply having a great hope for something, but being more unsure about whether it actually is true or not. Perhaps faith motivates someone to go out on a limb and do things that might not be completely rational, but is done merely to explore the unkown and see where it takes them.Homicidal_Cherry53 wrote: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).jgh7 wrote: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.Zzyzx wrote:.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�.jgh7 wrote: 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.
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.
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.
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?
I have a very strong hope for God. My belief that He actually exists is very shaky since I'm not smart enough to analyze every aspect of this universe and science, and since I haven't had any supernatural experiences of God. I only have the basic primitive hypothesis that this universe and the events which have brought life to where it is are far too complex and ordered to have arose out of random collisions of particles. Something in me tells me that there might have to be a guiding force of some kind who perhaps sets things into motion and sees that they stay on track. I dont bother to use this as an argument since I know Ill get bombarded with counterarguments and whatnot. But I thought I should tell you since you were wondering.
These arguments do very little to provide evidence for God's existence. So basically all I have is an inkling that he exists. One might ask themself, why bother investigating an inkling that is nearly impossible to find an answer to? It's possible that the entire investigation could be completely fruitless and I could end up not knowing anything more and not being any more sure about God's existence 50 years into the future than I am right now. The reason I want to devote my life to finding God is because I came to the realization that life is pointless if God doesn't exist. This realization is more than enough for me to go out on a limb and do a bunch of things that others consider irrational in order to try and find answers to God's existence.
I'm sure that you and other skeptics are plenty able to find meaning in your lives without God's existence. Because of this, you are much more likely to view my actions as irrational. But in actuality, they are no more irrational then when anyone, including a scientist, takes a shot in the dark or a guess, and looks to see what happens. Many of the greatest discoveries in science have come out of flukes and guesses that might have seemed slightly irrational. I think judgements for rationality are not only based on weighing out logical possibilties, but they also come from the individual's judgements of worth and importance. If something is viewed as insignificant to someone, then they are more likely to view guesses made towards that certain thing as irrational and pointless. If something is highly important to someone, then they are more likely to allow guesses to be made towards that certain thing and not judge them as irrational, but take them into deep consideration and thought. People's ideas for what are important to them cause them to be biased on what they deem to be rational and irrational.
- InTheFlesh
- Guru
- Posts: 1478
- Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 9:54 pm
Post #164
Care to explain how life originated from non-living matter?Thought Criminal wrote:You quoted it verbatim without attribution; that's plagiarism by definition. Or, in layman's terms, stealing.InTheFlesh wrote: First of all, it's not stealing.
By the way, it's not from Kent Hovind. You stole it from Creation Moments, which took it (with attribution) from a ministry called the Center for Scientific Creation, which is basically just Walt Brown. Amusingly, Brown actually has a doctorate, though his writings are not in his field of competence and have been routinely debunked.
Then attribute it properly, without forcing us to track it down and catch you stealing.I pointed this out and someone asked me to post it here for debate.
Well, let's look at the very first claim. If it's not total garbage, then the rest deserve consideration.Should I accept your comment in bold as truth?
Can you back it up or will you just say it's BS?
The Law of Biogenesis dates back to Pasteur, and in fact has nothing to do with the modern concept of abiogenesis. Rather, he was talking about the spontaneous generation of flies and rats. So, in other words, this point is a bald-faced lie.1. It is an established scientific fact that life cannot originate from non-living matter (the Law of Biogenesis).
I rest my case.
TC
-
- Banned
- Posts: 1081
- Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 10:05 pm
Post #166
In the very general sense, faith can mean any sort of belief on any basis. In the philosophical sense, the meaning is much more specific: belief that is not rationally justified. If you want to explore the unknown, I have no problem with that, but pretending to know stuff is a dead end.jgh7 wrote:It's hard to say what the exact definition of faith is. Some people might think that faith actually means believing that something is actually true based on the evidence you have. Other people might think that faith means simply having a great hope for something, but being more unsure about whether it actually is true or not. Perhaps faith motivates someone to go out on a limb and do things that might not be completely rational, but is done merely to explore the unkown and see where it takes them.
I don't hope one way or the other, I just go with the evidence. The problem isn't your lack of intelligence, but rather the simple lack of evidence. There aren't any people smart enough to be able to find evidence of God. I suggest that this is simply because God doesn't exist.I have a very strong hope for God. My belief that He actually exists is very shaky since I'm not smart enough to analyze every aspect of this universe and science, and since I haven't had any supernatural experiences of God. I only have the basic primitive hypothesis that this universe and the events which have brought life to where it is are far too complex and ordered to have arose out of random collisions of particles. Something in me tells me that there might have to be a guiding force of some kind who perhaps sets things into motion and sees that they stay on track. I dont bother to use this as an argument since I know Ill get bombarded with counterarguments and whatnot. But I thought I should tell you since you were wondering.
The problem with positing a God to explain the complexity of the universe is that God is more complex than what he's supposed to explain. A more scientific explanation is to recognize that the universe is not random; it follows a small number of laws. As for complexity, that comes from simple starting conditions over time. That's why there was no consciousness when the universe was young; complexity came later.
Why would life be pointless without God? No, seriously, why?These arguments do very little to provide evidence for God's existence. So basically all I have is an inkling that he exists. One might ask themself, why bother investigating an inkling that is nearly impossible to find an answer to? It's possible that the entire investigation could be completely fruitless and I could end up not knowing anything more and not being any more sure about God's existence 50 years into the future than I am right now. The reason I want to devote my life to finding God is because I came to the realization that life is pointless if God doesn't exist. This realization is more than enough for me to go out on a limb and do a bunch of things that others consider irrational in order to try and find answers to God's existence.
Scientists don't confuse guesses with facts. They can suspect things, but they don't just believe them without evidence. Truth doesn't depend on what we want to be true.I'm sure that you and other skeptics are plenty able to find meaning in your lives without God's existence. Because of this, you are much more likely to view my actions as irrational. But in actuality, they are no more irrational then when anyone, including a scientist, takes a shot in the dark or a guess, and looks to see what happens. Many of the greatest discoveries in science have come out of flukes and guesses that might have seemed slightly irrational. I think judgements for rationality are not only based on weighing out logical possibilties, but they also come from the individual's judgements of worth and importance. If something is viewed as insignificant to someone, then they are more likely to view guesses made towards that certain thing as irrational and pointless. If something is highly important to someone, then they are more likely to allow guesses to be made towards that certain thing and not judge them as irrational, but take them into deep consideration and thought. People's ideas for what are important to them cause them to be biased on what they deem to be rational and irrational.
TC
-
- Banned
- Posts: 1081
- Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 10:05 pm
Post #167
Abiogenesis. The starting point is a self-replicating chemical, such as a fairly short peptide that catalyzes its own production. Once you have replication, natural selection kicks in and makes replicators that are better at copying themselves. Wrap the replicator in a leaky bubble of fat and you've got the beginnings of a cell. It looks like an important intermediate step involved RNA playing both the role of replicator and catalyst (ribozyme). Later, DNA took over the replicator role, while RNA was used in synthesizing proteins to act as both building blocks and catalysts (enzymes).InTheFlesh wrote:Care to explain how life originated from non-living matter?
It's absolutely vital to understand that, since this was a one-time event that happened billions of years ago and left only indirect evidence, we're not at all clear on the details and there are still a number of plausible competing theories out there. The important commonality is that, like all of evolution, it starts with simplicity and builds complexity over time by way of natural selection. In contrast, Creationism starts with the impossibly complex, emphasis on "impossible".
For a more details, you could start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
TC
-
- Banned
- Posts: 1081
- Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 10:05 pm
- Goat
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24999
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Re: Can a belief in God be justified on a rational basis?
Post #169No, it's a redefinition, along the pantheist line.Thought Criminal wrote:No, God is the ocean, and the ocean exists so God exists. Oh, wait. That's not an argument, that's a misdefinition!goat wrote:No, God is the universe. We are all part of God...McCulloch wrote:And I thought that God is love. No, God is Spirit.justifyothers wrote:God is science. He has created all and holds in His hands the laws of the universe, understanding that He has created them for us.
So why would a God of science tell us that the universe is less than 10,000 years old and then let us observe stars which are orders of magnitude more than 10,000 light years away?
TC
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�
Steven Novella
Steven Novella
-
- Banned
- Posts: 1081
- Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 10:05 pm
Re: Can a belief in God be justified on a rational basis?
Post #170No, God is the ocean, and the ocean exists so God exists. Oh, wait. That's not an argument, that's a misdefinition!goat wrote:No, God is the universe. We are all part of God...
TC[/quote]
No, it's a redefinition, along the pantheist line.[/quote]
It's both.
TC